Allow JPG 2000, and other more efficent compression file type screenshots - A Site Idea.
The old JPEG file system is a bit outdated, among other things.
Ratings
loves this
is undecided about this
loves this
-
Joined 15y agoLevel Design Expert Offline 9,732 points Ranked 925th25 medals 2 legendary 3 rare
Dr.iCeLevel Design Expert10y i'd personally rather see TGA (Targa) as a format we should adopt, but the problem is the same as JPEG2000, it's not natively rendered.
URL to post: -
> **Posted by MC rex** > > **Posted by Logan Dougall** > > > What I mean is browsers don't display jpeg2000 images natively; same for tga, pnga, and many other image formats -- adoption to browsers is rather slow. I remember firefox devs marking the suggestion for adding jpeg2000 compatibility as a "won't fix". > > I've never seen someone complain "My browser can't render that image!" before. I understand why every browser would support JPEG, the damn thing is 20 years old, but its a bit surprising that they don't support even the most common ones that aren't jpeg, like png. Jpeg2000 is not the same as jpeg. Same as pnga is not the same as png. Like I said, newer formats are not adopted instantly because they're not widely used when perfectly good ones still exist. URL to post: -
> **Posted by Logan Dougall** > What I mean is browsers don't display jpeg2000 images natively; same for tga, pnga, and many other image formats -- adoption to browsers is rather slow. I remember firefox devs marking the suggestion for adding jpeg2000 compatibility as a "won't fix". I've never seen someone complain "My browser can't render that image!" before. I understand why every browser would support JPEG, the damn thing is 20 years old, but its a bit surprising that they don't support even the most common ones that aren't jpeg, like png. URL to post: -
What I mean is browsers don't display jpeg2000 images natively; same for tga, pnga, and many other image formats -- adoption to browsers is rather slow. I remember firefox devs marking the suggestion for adding jpeg2000 compatibility as a "won't fix". URL to post: -
> **Posted by Logan Dougall** > Last I checked, JPEG2000 doesn't render natively in browsers, we'd have to convert each and every one still. So, what does that mean? Also, JPEG2000 was a suggestion, just to get the ideas rolling. Whatever the developers of the site would see fit should probably do. URL to post: -
Last I checked, JPEG2000 doesn't render natively in browsers, we'd have to convert each and every one still. URL to post: -
It's always a pain having to convert my PNGs into JPGs. I'm all for this. URL to post:
Summary
4 in favor
0 against
0 against
-
Loved67% (2/3)
-
Undecided33% (1/3)
