797
PNG has been updated for the first time in 22 years — new spec supports HDR and animation (www.tomshardware.com)
submitted 1 year ago by to c/technology@lemmy.world
111 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[+] -20 points 1 year ago (14 children)

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 .

!<

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 14 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (12 children)

    downvoters: is it wrong?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
    •
  • [+] 33 points 1 year ago* (2 children)
    [deleted]
  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [+] -7 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
    load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago (8 children)

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

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [–] 16 points 1 year ago* (7 children)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
    •
  • [–] -1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (6 children)

    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".

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 8 points 1 year 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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago* (3 children)

    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]

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] -2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago

    I'll spell out for you why I feel these two things are the same. You're welcome to disagree, but maybe it will give you some pointers as to why a lot of people are annoyed by these LLM copy-pasta.

    First, a note for your ego : Remember, we don't know you! You might have read through the whole thing that the LLM generated, and then cross-referenced the sources it gave you and then found some more, and you established the veracity of what it told you. OR you might have not bothered and just copy-pasted it for the clout, I guess, which is what the majority of LLM users do when publishing these answers. Ask for some explanations on how to solve a problem to a student who let a LLM give them the answer to an assignment instead of doing the work, if you need proof. 9/10 won't be able to, because they didn't bother to understand it - and I'm being generous in my statistics, in my experience.

    There's also a lot of research that hints that the long term effect of using this tool in that way are deleterious to your critical thinking skills.
    We don't know you, so, chances are you're in the lot of the majority, as far as we're concerned.

    Then, given that you probably didn't put much effort into this text (as far as we can tell), there is an imbalance of effort required for us to look through it critically. Why the fuck would we put in the effort, if you most likely were not keen in putting so much in yourself? That's kinda disrespectful, and egotistical. And also why I feel I am justified to assume that ctrl+c/ctrl+v an LLM output directly is tantamount to copy pasting a list of link from google. If you went through the trouble of validating the LLM output, how about just writing with your own word what you just realized / learned / validated? You can even dictate with tons of FOSS software nowadays if you're unable to type!

    So that's what I have for now, food for your thoughts I hope. I'm sure I could find more reasons, but I'm going to go do something fun instead.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago

    Was this thread better without it?

    Yes.

    I, and I assume most people, go into the comments on Lemmy to interact with other people. If I wanted to fucking chit-chat with an LLM (why you'd want to do that, I can't fathom), I'd go do that. We all have access to LLMs if we wish to have bullshit with a veneer of eloquency spouted at us.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 1 year 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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
    • load more comments (-1 replies)