|
|
|
|
|
by Hokusai
1573 days ago
|
|
> That sounds way less awesome, when you consider it only had 256 colors, so allmost all content did indeed loose a lot, by converting to gif. Nonlossy can be used for pixel perfect animations, lossy formats cannot. > Because file size matters usually much more, than pixel perfect animation. It depends. For video, that is true. For user interface, any glitch is distracting. Using JPEG for user interface images like buttons is in most cases a bad idea. Each format is useful in different situations. > I wanted to convert a short screencast to a gif, result: hundreds of megabyte big monster, with crappy quality. You are right, that is not a use case for GIF or equivalent formats. |
|
In some sense, JPEG is just a really weird programming language. So a JPEG file is just a really weird program that gets interpreted by a JPEG decoder. Most normal JPEG encoders try to find a short 'program' in the 'JPEG programming language' that gets interpreted by the decoder to recreate a particular image reasonably well.
But there's no reason you couldn't ask for a perfect reproduction.
As far as I know, JPEG decoders are lossless and deterministic.
I asked this question on https://stackoverflow.com/questions/71201691/does-jpeg-allow... to get something definite.
Of course, you point still stands that JPEG is not a good file format for storing UI elements. Even if in theory you could torture the JPEG standard enough to make this barely work.