• Muhammad@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      59 minutes ago

      What are u saying bro, itz still my go to option for transparency saves!, I don’t exactly know the details of the update but I am happy they are showing it some love

    • DahGangalang@infosec.pub
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      32 minutes ago

      Maybe I’m just a newb, but it still looks like PNG is the goto to ensure lossless image storage.

      Everything else on that list that is “better” does/can do lossy compression. I’m not sure how to force apps to use lossless compression, so to me, all those lossy-capable formats are a drawback.

  • tourist@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    93
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    22 hours ago

    2029 Headline: Worlds largest data breach caused by zero day exploit in popular PNG 3.0 renderer

    the payload was reportedly embedded in an animated image of the attacker repeatedly flicking his left testicle

    • mlg@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      17 hours ago

      Right there’s actually like a select few applications that support it which is cool, but so many get confused when they see an apng file with frames.

  • db2@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    142
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 day ago

    But is it backwards compatible with an old version that can’t be updated?

    • Ghostalmedia@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      25
      ·
      22 hours ago

      Speaking for animation, your browser probably already supports APNG. APNG is 21 years old and has decent adoption. But it’s officially part of the club.

      That said, APNGs are fat as fuck and they’re a pretty old solution to animated graphics with an alpha channel. Don’t expect to see everyone making APNGs all of the sudden. There is a reason why people have kept it at a distance.

    • otacon239@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      86
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 day ago

      Yeah, this was my first thought. How many slightly older, no-longer-being-updated pieces of software will fail to open the new version? Hopefully it’s built in a way that it just falls back to legacy and ignores the extra information so you can at least load the file.

      • Pennomi@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        49
        ·
        1 day ago

        Popular photo and video editing apps like Photoshop, DaVinci Resolve, and Avid Media Composer already support it, alongside Chrome, Safari, and Firefox. Apple’s iOS and macOS also work with the new file standard.

        This is all the article mentions. I hope you’re right about the backwards compatibility.

      • dual_sport_dork 🐧🗡️@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        25
        ·
        1 day ago

        I mean, that’s already how animated .gifs work. If somehow you manage to load one into a viewer that doesn’t support the animation functionality it will at least dutifully display the first frame.

        How the hell you would manage to do that in this day and age escapes me, but there were a fair few years in the early '90s where you might run into that sort of thing.

        • awesomesauce309@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          edit-2
          1 day ago

          Probably most notably the iOS photos app until like 2014.

          Edit: just checked. iOS 11 in 2017 added gif support to photos

          I’ll also add, safari supported animated gifs for a long time before that and you could still save them in safari like any other image. But photos would only show the first frame like you said. When 11 came out they played like normal.

        • BurgerBaron@piefed.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 day ago

          One example is piefed unfortunately. Animated gifs as avatar or banner don’t animate currently as far as I can tell.

          • dual_sport_dork 🐧🗡️@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            1 day ago

            Those are displayed in browser, right? The only reason that would be happening is if Piefeed is recompressing images and their code is not smart enough to identify an animated .gif and act accordingly.

                • BurgerBaron@piefed.social
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  16 hours ago

                  Oh good looks like you’re on it already nice! The only other thing I noticed missing moving from Lemmy was sorting Top by “x” amount of time, but I see there’s an open issue for that as well already. Nothing for me to do lol.

              • dual_sport_dork 🐧🗡️@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                4
                ·
                edit-2
                1 day ago

                I’ll bet you a shiny penny that’s what it is. The backend recompresses things to some other format, probably a low bitrate JPEG, in order to save space and/or in case some joker uploads a 90 megabyte uncompressed TIFF image to use as a profile pic, or something.

    • Deebster@infosec.pub
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      18
      ·
      1 day ago

      Some of this is paving the cowpath - the animated PNG stuff is 20 years old and e.g. Firefox has had support since March 2007.

    • cley_faye@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      22 hours ago

      The PNG format is made of chunks that have determined roles, and provides provisions for newer “standardized” chunks alongside the custom chunks it had supported until now. It is likely that PNG made with newer software that does not use new features, or uses only additional features, will remain readable by older software to some extent.

      • themurphy@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 day ago

        It makes sense, right? Is there a way around that when adding new features to a file format?

        The alternative is to make another file format for clarity, but it’s not really what you want to do.

        • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          1 day ago

          That depends. Something like HDR should be able to fall back to non-HDR since it largely just adds data, so if the format specifies that extra information is ignored, there’s a chance it works fine.

          • AnUnusualRelic@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            20 hours ago

            I’m not sure you can turn an hdr image into a regular one just by snipping it down to 8 bits per channel and discarding the rest.

            I mean it would work but I’m not certain you’ll get the best results.

            • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              20 hours ago

              it would work

              And that’s probably enough. I don’t know enough about HDR to know if it would look anything like the artist imagined, but as long as it’s close enough, it’s fine if it’s not optimal. Having things completely break is far less than ideal.

              • AnUnusualRelic@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                20 hours ago

                You’d probably get some colours that end up being quite off target. But you’ll get an image to display. So in the end it depends on how much “not optimal” you’re ready to accept.

                • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  20 hours ago

                  Right, and it depends on what “quite off target” means. Are we talking about greens becoming purples? Or dark greens becoming bright greens? If the image is still mostly recognizable, just with poor saturation or contrast or whatever, I think it’s acceptable for older software.

            • cley_faye@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              21 hours ago

              Likely, you’ll see the first frame only on older software. Encoding animation in a dedicated animation chunk and using the base spec for the first keyframe sounds like the sane thing to do, so they likely did that.

              I’m not going to look into it now, because I would then have to implement it. :D

    • Blackmist@feddit.uk
      cake
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      21 hours ago

      I’ll tell you if I can find some new files for testing.

      Even JPEG isn’t always back compatible either. I loaded an image into my software which uses some ancient library internally, and it swapped the blue and red channels.

    • Tetsuo@jlai.lu
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      28
      ·
      23 hours ago

      I’m probably gonna be massively downvoted for saying the forbidden word but I asked AI to do a summary with references of the forward and backward compatibility of PNG’s new version:

      !

      Based on recent search results, the new PNG specification (Third Edition) and its reference library (libpng) maintain strong backward compatibility while introducing modern features. Here’s a detailed compatibility analysis:

      🔄 1. Backward Compatibility (Viewing Old PNGs with New Lib)

      • Full Support: The new libpng (1.6.49+) and PNG Third Edition fully support legacy PNG files. Existing PNGs (conforming to the 2003/2004 spec) will render correctly without changes .
      • Implementation Stability: Libpng’s API evolution (e.g., hiding png_struct/png_info internals since 1.5.0) ensures older apps using png_get_*/png_set_* functions remain compatible. Direct struct access, deprecated since 1.4.x, may break in libpng 2.0.x (C99-only) .
      • Security Enhancements: Critical vulnerabilities (e.g., CVE-2019-7317 in png_image_free()) were patched in libpng 1.6.37+, making the new lib safer for decoding old files .

      ⚠️ 2. Forward Compatibility (Viewing New PNGs with Old Lib)

      • Basic Support: Older libpng versions (pre-1.6.37) can decode new PNGs if they avoid new features. Core chunks like IHDR or IDAT remain unchanged .
      • New Feature Limitations:
        • HDR Imagery: Requires libpng 1.6.45+ and apps supporting the mDCv chunk. Older libs ignore HDR data, falling back to SDR, which may cause color inaccuracies .
        • APNG Animation: Officially standardized in PNG Third Edition. Older libs (e.g., <1.6) treat APNG as static images, showing only the first frame .
        • EXIF Metadata: New eXIf chunks are ignored by legacy decoders, losing metadata like GPS or copyright info .
      • Security Risks: Older libs (e.g., ≤1.6.36) contain unpatched vulnerabilities (e.g., CVE-2015-8126). Parsing malicious new PNGs could exploit these flaws .

      📊 Compatibility Summary

      Scenario Compatibility Key Considerations
      Old PNG → New Lib ✅ Excellent Legacy files work flawlessly; security improved.
      New PNG → Old Lib ⚠️ Partial Basic rendering works, but HDR/APNG/EXIF ignored. Security risks in unpatched versions.
      New Features 🔧 Conditional Requires updated apps (e.g., Photoshop, browsers) and OS support .

      🔧 3. Implementation and Industry Adoption

      • Broad Support: Major browsers (Chrome, Safari, Firefox), OSs (iOS, macOS), and tools (Photoshop, DaVinci Resolve) already support the new spec .
      • Progressive Enhancement: New features like HDR use optional chunks, ensuring graceful degradation in older software .
      • Future-Proofing: Work on PNG Fourth Edition (HDR/SDR interoperability) and Fifth Edition (better compression) is underway .

      💎 Conclusion

      • Upgrade Recommended: New libpng (1.6.49+) ensures security and full compatibility with legacy files.
      • Test Workflows: Verify critical tools handle new features (e.g., APNG animation in browsers).
      • Fallbacks for Old Systems: For environments stuck with outdated libs, convert new PNGs to legacy format (e.g., strip HDR/APNG) .

      For developers: Use png_get_valid(png_ptr, info_ptr, PNG_INFO_mDCv) to check HDR support and provide fallbacks .

      !<

        • hardware26@discuss.tchncs.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          29
          ·
          edit-2
          23 hours ago

          I don’t know. If the poster couldn’t be bothered to fact-check, why would I? It is just safer to assume that it can be misinformation.

          • Tetsuo@jlai.lu
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            8
            ·
            20 hours ago

            If you prefer to know nothing about PNG compatibility rather than something that might be true about PNG. That’s fine but definitely not my approach.

            Also, as I said to another commenter. Critical thinking is not some tool you decide to use on some comments and not others. An AI answer on some topics is actually more likely to be correct than an answer by a human being. And it’s not some stuff I was told by an AI guru it’s what researchers are evaluating in many universities. Ask an human to complete various tasks and then ask the AI model and compare scientifically the data. And it turns out there is task where the AI outperforms the human pretty much all the time.

            YET on this particular task the assumption is that it’s bullshit and it’s just downvoted. Now I would have posted the same data myself and for some reason I would not see a single downvote. The same data represented differently completely change the likelihood of it being accurate. Even though at the end of the day you shouldn’t trust blindly neither a comment from an human or an AI output.

            Honestly, I’m saddened to see people already rejecting completely the technology instead of trying to understand what it’s good at and what it’s bad at and most importantly experiencing it themselves.

            I wanted to know what was generative AI worth so I read about it and tried it locally with open source software. Now I know how to spot images that are AI generated, I know what’s difficult for this tech and what is not. I think that’s a much healthier attitude than blindly rejecting any and all AI outputs.

            • AstaKask@lemmy.cafe
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              7
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              14 hours ago

              You put way too much trust in AI. AI is seldom right. It is however very good at sounding like it knows what it’s talking about. It’s like a conservative podcaster.

        • kungen@feddit.nu
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          13
          ·
          23 hours ago

          Considering it named CVE-2019-7317, which was fixed in April 2019, it’s already hallucinating and not worth reading further into it.

        • Tetsuo@jlai.lu
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          23 hours ago

          As you can see it’s irrelevant apparently. If it’s AI generated it will be downvoted.

          • null@slrpnk.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            14
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            22 hours ago

            It’s not irrelevant, it’s that you don’t actually know if it’s true or not, so it’s not a valuable contribution.

            If you started your comment by saying “This is something I completely made up and may or may not be correct” and then posted the same thing, you should expect the same result.

            • Tetsuo@jlai.lu
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              21 hours ago

              I did check some of the references.

              What I dont understand is why you would perceive this content as more trustworthy if I didn’t say it’s AI.

              Nobody should trust blindly some anonymous comment on a forum. I have to check what the AI blurbs out but you can just gobble the comment of some stranger without exercising yourself some critical thinking?

              As long as I’m transparent on the source and especially since I did check some of it to be sure it’s not some kind of hallucination…

              There shouldn’t be any difference of trust between some random comment on a social network and what some AI model thinks on a subject.

              Also it’s not like this is some important topic with societal implications. It’s just a technical question that I had (and still doesn’t) that doesn’t mandate researching. None of my work depends on that lib. So before my comment there was no information on compatibility. Now there is but you have to look at it critically and decide if you want to verify or trust it.

              That’s why I regret this kind of stubborn downvoting where people just assume the worse instead of checking the actual data.

              Sometime I really wonder if I’m the only one supposed to check my data? Aren’t everybody here capable of verifying the AI output if they think it’s worth the time and effort?

              Basically, downvoting here is choosing “no information” rather than “information I have to verify because it’s AI generated”.

              Edit: Also I could have just summarized the AI output myself and not mention AI. What then? Would you have checked the accuracy of that data? Critical thinking is not something you use “sometimes” or just “on some comments”.

              • antonim@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                6
                ·
                19 hours ago

                Also it’s not like this is some important topic with societal implications. It’s just a technical question that I had (and still doesn’t) that doesn’t mandate researching.

                So why “research” it with AI in the first place, if you don’t care about the results and don’t even think it’s worth researching? This is legitimately absurd to read.

              • null@slrpnk.net
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                4
                ·
                edit-2
                19 hours ago

                Are you really asking why advertising that “the following comment may be hallucinated” nets you more downvotes than just omitting that fact?

                You’re literally telling people “hey, this is a low effort comment” and acting flabbergasted that it gets you downvotes.

              • pticrix@lemmy.ca
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                5
                ·
                edit-2
                21 hours ago

                You realize that if we wanted to see an AI LLM response, we’d ask an AI LLM ourselves. What you’re doing is akin to :

                Hey guys, I’ve asked google if the new png is backward compatible, and here are the first links it gave me, hope this helps : [list 200 links]

                • Tetsuo@jlai.lu
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  3
                  ·
                  20 hours ago

                  I understand that. It’s the downvoting of the clearly marked as AI LLM response. Is it detrimental to the conversation here to have that? Is it better to share nothing rather than this LLM output?

                  Was this thread better without it?

                  Is complete ignorance of the PNG compatibility preferable to reading this AI output and pondering how true is it?

                  [list 200 links]

                  Now I think this conversation is getting just rude for no reason. I think the AI output was definitely not the “I’m lucky” result of a Google search and the fact that you choose that metaphor is in bad faith.

  • apfelwoiSchoppen@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    52
    ·
    edit-2
    1 day ago

    I could have sworn animated pngs were a thing in the Macromedia Fireworks days. Really dating myself with that ref.

    • nyan@lemmy.cafe
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      46
      ·
      1 day ago

      There were two different animated PNG extensions, MNG and APNG. Neither of them ever really caught on. I guess they’re hoping to do better by baking it into the core spec.

    • Substance_P@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 day ago

      I miss the days when all the cool websites used Flash. I think Macromedia killed it for some reason. Probably because it had security flaws, back then it was pretty bandwidth-intensive too, but it made for some dynamic web designs.

      • cley_faye@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        21 hours ago

        Flash was a security nightmare all round, not counting the security flaws. It was just designed without any security features. It was also terribly inefficient at its core job, that was supposedly vector animation. It filled a gap in a time where browser and standards where not that advanced.

        Over time, Flash issues where never resolved, but the bloatness of the software kept increasing. Along the way, HTML got better specs, JavaScript got vast improvement, especially in everyone adhering to roughly the same standard (thanks microsoft for finally caving in…), and so the flash interpreter was highly redundant with the browser itself.

        For a while flash editors could export in HTML5 and you’d get roughly the same result, but with a fraction of the resources requirements, so naturally there was little incentive to keep the flash player around.

        I’m not sure if “killing flash” could be attributed to their author, or to the loss of interest.

        Also note that alternative flash players exists to still play older swf files, and some sites uses them alongside with plain video conversion for flash animations that weren’t dynamic.

      • CompactFlax@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        17
        ·
        1 day ago

        The current situation with megabytes of JavaScript is pretty bad, but at the time, there was still a fair bit of dialup active, and mobile web was just starting to be a thing - on EDGE and barely 3G. It would take minutes to load.

        Also, Steve Jobs had it in for Flash and that’s what ultimately killed it off, I think.

        • dual_sport_dork 🐧🗡️@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          10
          ·
          1 day ago

          Yes, the iPhone did not and never has supported Flash. At least not officially from Apple. There was support, albeit not quite 100% complete, on Windows CE/PocketPC at the time, though. That was one of the things that let me lord it over early iPhone adopters back in the day — my pocket nerd computer could play Homestar Runner videos, and their stupid expensive bauble couldn’t. So there.

            • dual_sport_dork 🐧🗡️@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              22 hours ago

              I have a Dell Axim X50v in a box somewhere. I imagine the battery is toast and I’ll probably have to keep it in its cradle to remain powered. It was a hell of a machine for it’s day.

              I went through a succession Windows CE/PocketPC machines back in the day, starting with a Casio Cassiopeia E-115, then an Audiovox Maestro which was a rebadged Toshiba, then an HP iPAQ 2215, and finally the Axim.

              The displays on the Maestro and the Axim were really something, and I wish someone would bring these back for a modern smartphone. They were rotten at color accuracy, but both had transflective displays that were fully readable even in direct sunlight. The Axim X50v also had a full 480x640 screen resolution which blew the first few iPhones out of the water on pixel density and even gave the iPhone 4 a run for its money. “Retina” display, my ass.

              I had a Microdrive bunged into the CompactFlash slot on my Axim which was… several gigabytes, I don’t remember how many. I kept it packed with MP3’s, and I had a custom wallpaper with a white-on-chartreuse silhouette of a pacifier on it with the legend, “All 10,000 Songs On Your iPod Suck.”

              But then the entire PDA market got swallowed in one gulp by smartphones.

    • MrScottyTay@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      1 day ago

      I miss fireworks. For me that was the best. I’ve never jived with Photoshop or is alternatives.

      I have since landed on krita, aseprite and inkscape. But i still miss the workflow I got used to with fireworks.

    • Tony Bark@pawb.socialOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      1 day ago

      Sigh, I miss Macromedia. Anyway, I do remember that being a thing as well. Guess it was never officially part of the spec.

    • AdrianTheFrog@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      20
      ·
      edit-2
      14 hours ago

      JXL is badly supported but it does offer lossless encoding in a more flexible and much more efficient way than png does

      Basically jxl could theoretically replace png, jpg, and also exr.

      • lemmyknow@lemmy.today
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        20 hours ago

        Interestingly, I downloaded GNOME’s pride month wallpaper to see what it looked like, and the files were JXL. Never seen them in the wild before that

        • pastermil@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          13 hours ago

          Some parts of the open source world probably still desperately try to make JXL happen. This is understandable, considering its potential. Shame this wouldn’t work.

          • lemmyknow@lemmy.today
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            6 hours ago

            Why are they trying to make it happen, and why it no work? Is JXL better than PNG? Maybe I need to do some research to better learn the difference

  • Zarxrax@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    26
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    1 day ago

    Fracturing support for a legacy format makes so much more sense than actually supporting a modern format like JXL, right?

    • ada@piefed.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      1 day ago

      If this actually stands a chance of taking off, I’ll honestly take what I can get to normalise HDR images