Is the web allergic to JPG?
-
I was going to make a small demo of loading a jpg from the web and consuming it on an ESP32 The image should be small (320x240 ish) because i can't resize it, it should be retrievable by an end user for verification and hopefully it would be a prominent recognizable figure on the web. Here's what I've checked: Code Project's logo (gif) Google's logo (png) Twitter (png, and huge) Reddit (not easily retrievable) Github (not easily retrievable) Youtube (not easily retrievable) Here's what I don't want to promote - even by way of a demo: Microsoft Facebook I feel like maybe I have some tunnel vision. Surely there is site with a prominent logo in jpg that's easily accessible from a browser, no? Am I being unrealistic? Should I implement png? (I really don't want to for reasons)
To err is human. Fortune favors the monsters.
Jpg is filth.
-
viewing an image over the web does not violate copyright laws, even if the viewer is an IoT device.
To err is human. Fortune favors the monsters.
True, but if you (say) use the Coca-Cola logo and advise people to view said logo on your device (even as a proof-of-concept) there's the risk that Coca-Cola will complain (fair use, passing-off, trademark etc) or demand you include a copyright / trademark notice. If you're aiming to have an instantly-recognisable logo, companies of that size/fame can be a bit tetchy about how their logo is used. Very unlikely, true, but possible. But for those same reasons of control and wanting a "perfect" viewing experience, they're unlikely to have a .JPG logo anyway.
-
I was going to make a small demo of loading a jpg from the web and consuming it on an ESP32 The image should be small (320x240 ish) because i can't resize it, it should be retrievable by an end user for verification and hopefully it would be a prominent recognizable figure on the web. Here's what I've checked: Code Project's logo (gif) Google's logo (png) Twitter (png, and huge) Reddit (not easily retrievable) Github (not easily retrievable) Youtube (not easily retrievable) Here's what I don't want to promote - even by way of a demo: Microsoft Facebook I feel like maybe I have some tunnel vision. Surely there is site with a prominent logo in jpg that's easily accessible from a browser, no? Am I being unrealistic? Should I implement png? (I really don't want to for reasons)
To err is human. Fortune favors the monsters.
-
I was going to make a small demo of loading a jpg from the web and consuming it on an ESP32 The image should be small (320x240 ish) because i can't resize it, it should be retrievable by an end user for verification and hopefully it would be a prominent recognizable figure on the web. Here's what I've checked: Code Project's logo (gif) Google's logo (png) Twitter (png, and huge) Reddit (not easily retrievable) Github (not easily retrievable) Youtube (not easily retrievable) Here's what I don't want to promote - even by way of a demo: Microsoft Facebook I feel like maybe I have some tunnel vision. Surely there is site with a prominent logo in jpg that's easily accessible from a browser, no? Am I being unrealistic? Should I implement png? (I really don't want to for reasons)
To err is human. Fortune favors the monsters.
Corporate logos tend to be lossless so they can be displayed in their maximum quality.
-
I was going to make a small demo of loading a jpg from the web and consuming it on an ESP32 The image should be small (320x240 ish) because i can't resize it, it should be retrievable by an end user for verification and hopefully it would be a prominent recognizable figure on the web. Here's what I've checked: Code Project's logo (gif) Google's logo (png) Twitter (png, and huge) Reddit (not easily retrievable) Github (not easily retrievable) Youtube (not easily retrievable) Here's what I don't want to promote - even by way of a demo: Microsoft Facebook I feel like maybe I have some tunnel vision. Surely there is site with a prominent logo in jpg that's easily accessible from a browser, no? Am I being unrealistic? Should I implement png? (I really don't want to for reasons)
To err is human. Fortune favors the monsters.
Stock Images, Royalty-Free Pictures, Illustrations & Videos - iStock[^] It has a nice collection of jpegs. But can't say progressive loading or interlaced.
With Warm Regards, Amol.
-
I was going to make a small demo of loading a jpg from the web and consuming it on an ESP32 The image should be small (320x240 ish) because i can't resize it, it should be retrievable by an end user for verification and hopefully it would be a prominent recognizable figure on the web. Here's what I've checked: Code Project's logo (gif) Google's logo (png) Twitter (png, and huge) Reddit (not easily retrievable) Github (not easily retrievable) Youtube (not easily retrievable) Here's what I don't want to promote - even by way of a demo: Microsoft Facebook I feel like maybe I have some tunnel vision. Surely there is site with a prominent logo in jpg that's easily accessible from a browser, no? Am I being unrealistic? Should I implement png? (I really don't want to for reasons)
To err is human. Fortune favors the monsters.
-
True, but if you (say) use the Coca-Cola logo and advise people to view said logo on your device (even as a proof-of-concept) there's the risk that Coca-Cola will complain (fair use, passing-off, trademark etc) or demand you include a copyright / trademark notice. If you're aiming to have an instantly-recognisable logo, companies of that size/fame can be a bit tetchy about how their logo is used. Very unlikely, true, but possible. But for those same reasons of control and wanting a "perfect" viewing experience, they're unlikely to have a .JPG logo anyway.
Pretty sure Coca-Cola isn't going to come after me for a sample project. I'll risk it. :laugh:
To err is human. Fortune favors the monsters.
-
I expect them to know when to use JPEG and when not to use it, and clearly they do... And that is somehow funny? Why? PNG and JPEG are very different formats, and in most cases it is clear which one to use. Try to load the PNG they have into paint or whatever you have, then save it as JPEG. Now load the JPEG and zoom in on the high contrast ares - like around text. Now you know when not to choose JPEG. Similar try taking a JPEG photo of nature in good quality and save it as PNG (or better, a raw image saved in both if you have a camera that can store raw images). Look at the file size compared to the perceived quality. Now you know when not to choose PNG. Of course there are cased in-between - photos that for example contains a sign with text. Then you have to choose one or the other, with the downside it brings.
-
I expect them to know when to use JPEG and when not to use it, and clearly they do... And that is somehow funny? Why? PNG and JPEG are very different formats, and in most cases it is clear which one to use. Try to load the PNG they have into paint or whatever you have, then save it as JPEG. Now load the JPEG and zoom in on the high contrast ares - like around text. Now you know when not to choose JPEG. Similar try taking a JPEG photo of nature in good quality and save it as PNG (or better, a raw image saved in both if you have a camera that can store raw images). Look at the file size compared to the perceived quality. Now you know when not to choose PNG. Of course there are cased in-between - photos that for example contains a sign with text. Then you have to choose one or the other, with the downside it brings.
Yes, I understand the benefits of PNG/RAW & JPG (and when to use them) - thanks for the simple examples too. Hopefully your answer brings some additional insight to someone reading this thread. My little laugh was just that OP is looking for a JPG, and even the JPEG group prefers PNG in this case - simple as that. But I guess it's hard to convey the intent of a light chuckle on the interwebs. Sorry about that. Best regards!