Re: BGRA, ARGB, etc. suggestion

On Mon, Dec 21, 2015 at 9:02 PM, Willem van Schaik <[email protected]>
wrote:

>
> not being a graphics scientist or expert in any sense, but I can see the
> importance of 32 bit grayscale PNG files for certain applications
>

In fact ImageMagick/GraphicsMagick have supported 32-bit samples for a
long time, just not in the PNG format.


> each time I hear this "oh, but that will break the PNG specification
> standard" I'm cringing, because if that is really true we didn't do a
> good enough job of creating a standard that would be extendable and
> flexible
>

I don't think I said it would break the specification.  I said it would
violate
the guidelines.  I think the guidelines could be subject to debate.  If we
change them significantly then it would be time for PNG 2.0.


> I'm not saying that 32 bit grayscale graphics is important enough for
> the effort to do an upgrade of PNG, but hey we're here now 20 years
> after the fact, upgrades should be possible, we don't want to become
> "cast in stone"  <g>
>

>>  and I personally think this is a really good one to prove or test how
> flexible the PNG standard really is ...
>
> 20 years with no change is too long !!
>

OK, let's have at it then.  What does PNG-2.0 need?

- Animation?

- A larger palette (BIGP),with more than 256 indexes and 32-bit color
samples?

- Backward compatibility (a PNG-2.0 decoder must handle PNG-1.0
files)?

- BGRA and ARGB sample ordering in pixels?

Glenn

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

_______________________________________________
png-mng-misc mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/png-mng-misc