|
I couldn't say off hand. I was looking at some code on github some months back on doing this.
To err is human. Fortune favors the monsters.
|
|
|
|
|
Any reason you can't convert a suitable image to jpg and add it to your GitHub project? It would then be easily accessible and your preferred format.
Keep Calm and Carry On
|
|
|
|
|
That would defeat the purpose of the demo, which is to load a picture off a network stream.
Edit: Never mind. I see what you mean. I'm a bit slow today. Yeah, I could do that.
To err is human. Fortune favors the monsters.
|
|
|
|
|
honey the codewitch wrote: Should I implement png?
Yes.
And WebP[^].
And AVIF[^].
And don't forget APNG[^] too. 
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined."
- Homer
|
|
|
|
|
I'm not making a web browser. I need bare minimum functionality. This isn't a Cortex-A I'm targeting. 
To err is human. Fortune favors the monsters.
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: I'm not making a web browser.
Not at the moment... But all the stuff I'm reading from you, there is a chance that you develop a web browser for ATTINY85 or similars 
|
|
|
|
|
Okay, I deserved that.
To err is human. Fortune favors the monsters.
|
|
|
|
|
Why limit yourself to a logo? Using a company logo has drawbacks anyway, such as legal copyright etc., or implications of involvement with the company (as you suggest by not wishing to use Microsoft or Facebook examples).
Why not choose a public domain image of a recognisable landmark or figure, or even take your own photo of such a thing and host it on the web (thus avoiding any IP issues)?
(Finding small JPGs is likely to be a hard task anyway since for small images, there is often little benefit in using JPG compression - it just results in ugly artefacts if compression is high and no advantage if compression is low. It's larger images where JPG comes into its own, really...)
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
Pretty sure Coca-Cola isn't going to come after me for a sample project. I'll risk it.
To err is human. Fortune favors the monsters.
|
|
|
|
|
JPG legally requires a licensing fee. As a result PNG was developed to avoid this fee.
|
|
|
|
|
I think that was .GIF, which was developed by Compuserve who got a bit tetchy about it. Not aware of a license fee for JPG images...
|
|
|
|
|
You can get random, free to use photo JPEGs from Lorem Picsum[^]. For example, try loading https://picsum.photos/320/240 from your code.
|
|
|
|
|
No. It just embraces transparency. For unknown reasons. Ahhchooo!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If you do find one please let the internet authorities know so the guilty can be thrown in jail. JPEG is for photos. Using it for logos, technical drawings and similar is just horrible.
|
|
|
|
|
Corporate logos tend to be lossless so they can be displayed in their maximum quality.
|
|
|
|
|
LOL!
Even the "Joint Photographic Experts Group" page uses PNG!
JPEG site[^]
|
|
|
|
|
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!
|
|
|
|
|
A version of the game that actively works against the player but with no limits on the number of guesses can be found at the following website.
(https://qntm.org/files/absurdle/absurdle.html)
If you finally reach the solution PUFFY, because so many letters have been ruled out by earlier guesses, it will switch the word internally to PUPPY. When you now try PUPPY, it will switch the word again. Finally when you try GUPPY, the game may accept that as the solution and the game ends.
It is way more difficult than Wordle.
But fun, if you are masochistic!😂😂😂
|
|
|
|
|
Fun! I played several rounds, the best I could get was 6 guesses, but my average was around 8 guesses. I found a bug(?) where you can backspace through words you've already entered, but due to the adversarial nature of the game it doesn't seem to be a viable way to cheat (it just changes the answer!)
|
|
|
|
|
I'm disappointed with Linus' solid IDE. (13)
Software rusts. Simon Stephenson, ca 1994. So does this signature. me, 2012
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
