Is there a unified and lightweight method for loading multiple common image file formats in NodeJS which provides read access to individual pixels?
It should support gif, jpeg, and png.
Preferably it would either support other image formats too or provide a way to add more. (webp, etc.)
It does not need to be able to save the file again after modifying pixels, provide metadata access, or anything else.
It doesn't need to be able to load images from URLs.
So far the libraries that support multiple image formats are heavyweight, such as providing full canvas support or full image processing support.
Is there a lightweight way to do this that I'm not finding?
I don't know why I couldn't find this one before posting here:
get-pixels
Given a URL/path, grab all the pixels in an image and return the result as an ndarray. Written in 100% JavaScript, works both in browserify and in node.js and has no external native dependencies.
Currently the following file formats are supported:
PNG
JPEG
GIF
It hasn't had any updates for two years but seems the most lightweight. I'm guessing people might mostly use Jimp these days. It doesn't seem to have external dependencies and is actively developed, but includes a lot of image processing functionality I don't need.
I am using Tableau to do some data representations and the only good quality image export Tableau allows is *.emf
Unfortunately, the online tool I use to put the report together(Canva) does not support emf format.
When I convert the file to jpg or png, the quality is drastically reduced :(
How can I overcome this matter? I tried many things such as opening emf in Illustrator and saving back with CMYK colors and 300dpi and such. But nothing seems to keep the crisp quality of the original emf file.
User Friendly solution:
InkScape opens enhanced windows metafiles, and many other vector-graphical file formats.
It exports to png with choice for output's resolution
It is opensource and available for Linux, windows and Mac OS X.
It is a fact that Tableau's image export feature does not provide many options. In general when I need high quality images, I use one of the below methods depending on the quality I need and the tools available to me at that time:
Screenshot method: If you have a large screen, taking a screenshot directly from Tableau yields better images than the exported ones. If my viz is exported to web, I sometimes enlarge the graphic from my web browser and then take the screenshot.
Converting from PDF: Since PDF can contain vector objects, Tableau's PDF files are in high quality most of the times. If you cannot use these PDF files, you may try converting these files to PNG or JPG files using online or desktop tools. Here is an online tool you may use for this purpose, but be careful about your confidential files when using such online services :)
And there are more ways to convert from PDF but are usually more complicated since they contain some Photoshop steps. I am not sure whether these are easy to apply methods for a lot of files but still you may want to check one of them: https://community.tableau.com/thread/120134
I just started at a new company and have been asked to do what I believe impossible, but I need confirmation on this. The website that my company has allows users to view images in extremely high resolution using SVGs. We've built a custom viewer for these images that allow you to zoom and scroll around the image and it works well. Because of this, the image format "needs" to remain SVG. However, we need to include a watermark to this image. The way we're doing this right now is passing the SVG and PNG watermark to the client, inserting the watermark into the SVG, and displaying it to the user. This is very obviously easily hacked as anyone with client-side experience knows (The dev team here is mostly older developers and don't have much web experience). Even if the raw SVG isn't intercepted, they can still just delete the watermark from the source. I've convinced my boss to make the watermark be injected on the server-side, so this leaves just the problem that SVGs are editable by the end-client.
What I want to know is if one of these two things are possible:
1) Is there another image format akin to SVG that could be used to keep this highly scalable image without loosing resolution, and without it being directly editable by an end-client? The only options that people seem to discuss for the web is JPG, GIF, PNG, and SVG. I've looked at Adobe Illustrator ".ai" files and EPS (Encapsulated PostScript) as other vector options, but I can't find anywhere if I can modify these images in PHP, which is key if I want to overlay a watermark in server-side code.
2) Is there a way to obfuscate the raw SVGs content so that the use can't go and manipulate it? I've seen SVGs that have <image ...> tags inside them with PNGs represented as long and complex strings before. Something like xlink:href="data:image/png;base64...". I was wondering if there's a way to display an SVG as this string, so that the data can't be directly manipulated. I'm sure there's an algorithm to reverse these, but so long as we're sticking with SVGs, I need to make this as secure as possible with as many hoops to jump through as possible if someone wants to steal the data.
Either way would be acceptable, as long as removing this watermark is more complex than just hitting F12 and removing the element inside the dev tools.
Is there another image format akin to SVG that could be used to keep this highly scalable image without loosing resolution, and without it being directly editable by an end-client?
SVG is a vector format, and to maintain extreme scalability, you need to stick with vectors, be it any format. However, in that case it will always be possible to remove the vectors that belong to your watermark. There are of course vector formats that are stored as binary, which would make it somewhat harder for an enduser to parse and edit, but those are not editable in PHP either, and are much less compatible. So you probably don't want to do this.
Is there a way to obfuscate the raw SVGs content so that the user can't go and manipulate it?
First, it will never be "secure" in the sense that as said above, it will always be possible to remove the watermark from a vector image. (Btw the only difference to bitmap formats like JPG is that content below the watermark in bitmap is actually missing, while in SVG it's still there.)
However, depending on how "good" you want this to be, you can do a few things. I think the "goodness" here means the effort needed to remove the watermark, and you can raise the bar relatively easily. You don't have to (and you probably can't reasonably) obfuscate the whole SVG.
One thing that comes to mind is that SVG is basically just XML, it consists of tags like <rect>, <line>, <circle> etc. The order of these tags doesn't matter much (mostly, with exceptions of course). So you could entwine the tags that draw your watermark pretty much randomly among existing tags. I mean really randomly, so different downloads would produce different results. If you do this well (eg. you find line tags to "hide" your watermark line tags, and so on), it will be hard to automatically remove the watermark, because it's all over relevant data that is your actual image. Of course, the watermark could still be visually in a corner, and this is already a weakness, anything drawn to a corner could possibly be removed automatically. And it will be easy to remove by hand with any decent editor I suppose. So it depends on what the purpose is.
But I still think this sort of thing could make it hard enough in many scenarios (and would be totally inadequate in others).
As it currently stands, this question is not a good fit for our Q&A format. We expect answers to be supported by facts, references, or expertise, but this question will likely solicit debate, arguments, polling, or extended discussion. If you feel that this question can be improved and possibly reopened, visit the help center for guidance.
Closed 9 years ago.
When doing small icons, header graphics and the like for websites, is it better to use GIFs or PNGs?
Obviously if transparency effects are required, then PNGs are definitely the way to go, and for larger, more photographic images I'd use JPEGs - but for normal web "furniture", which would you recommend and why? It may just be the tools I'm using, but GIF files usually seem to be a bit smaller than a comparible PNG, but using them just seems so 1987.
As a general rule, PNG is never worse, and often better than GIF because of superior compression. There might be some edge cases where GIF is slightly better (because the PNG format may have a slightly larger overhead from metadata) but it's really not worth the worry.
It may just be the tools I'm using, but GIF files usually seem to be a bit smaller than a comparible PNG
That may indeed be due to the encoding tool you use.
/EDIT: Wow, there seem to be a lot of misconceptions about PNG file size. To quote Matt:
There's nothing wrong with GIFs for images with few colours, and as you have noticed they tend to be smaller.
This is a typical encoding mistake and not inherent in the format. You can control the colour depth and make the PNG file as small. Please refer to the relevant section in the Wikipedia article.
Also, lacking support in MSIE6 is blown out of proportion by Chrono:
If you need transparency and can get by with GIFs, then I'd recommend them because IE6 supports them. IE6 doesn't do well with transparent PNGs.
That's wrong. MSIE6 does support PNG transparency. It doesn't support the alpha channel (without a few hacks), though but this is a different matter since GIFs don't have it at all.
The only technical reason to use GIFs instead of PNGs is when use need animation and don't want to rely on other formats.
The W3C mention 3 advantages of PNG over GIF.
• Alpha channels (variable
transparency),
• Cross-platform gamma correction
(control of image brightness) and
color correction
• Two-dimensional interlacing (a
method of progressive display).
Also, have a look at these resources for guidance:
PNG v's GIF (W3C Guidance)
PNG FAQ
Wow, I'm really suprised with all the wrong answers here. PNG-8 will always be smaller than GIF when properly optimized. Just run your PNG-8 files through PngCrush or any of the other PNG optimization routines.
The key things to understand:
PNG8 and GIF are lossless <= 256 colors
PNG8 can always be smaller than GIF
GIF should never be used unless you need animation
and of course,
Use JPG for black&white or full color photographic images
Use PNG for low color, line art, screenshot type images
The main reason to use PNG over GIF from a legal standpoint is covered here:
http://www.cloanto.com/users/mcb/19950127giflzw.html
The patents have apparently expired as of 2004, but the idea that you can use PNG as open-source over GIF is appealing to many people.
(png open source reference: http://www.linuxtoday.com/news_story.php3?ltsn=1999-09-09-021-04-PS)
Be careful of color shifts when using PNG. This link gives an example, and contains many more links with further explanation:
http://www.hanselman.com/blog/GammaCorrectionAndColorCorrectionPNGIsStillTooHard.aspx
GIF images are not subject to this problem.
I don't think it makes a lot of difference (customers don't care). Personally I would choose PNGs because they are a W3C standard.
Be cautious with the PNG transparency effects: they don't work with IE6.
For images on the web, each format has its pros and cons. For photograph-type images (ie lots and lots of colours, no hard edges) use a JPEG.
For icons and the like, you have a choice between PNG and GIF. GIFs are limited to 256 colours. PNGs can be formatted like GIFs (ie 256 colours, with 1-bit transparency that will work in IE6), but for small images they're slightly larger than GIFs. 24-bit PNGs support both a large gamut, and alpha transparency (although it's troublesome in IE6).
PNGS are your only really sensible choice for things like screenshots (ie, both lots of colours and hard edges), and personally, that's what I stick with most of the time, unless I have something for which JPEG is more suitable (like a photo).
Indexed PNG (less than 256 colors) is actually always smaller than gif, so I use that most of the time.
For computer generated graphics (i.e. drawn by yourself in Photoshop, Gimp, etc.) JPG is out of the question, because it is lossy - i.e. you get random gray pixels. For static images, PNG is better in every way: more colors, scalable transparency (say, 10% transparent, .gif only supports 0% and 100%), but there is a problem that some versions of Internet Explorer don't do PNG transparency correctly, so you get flat non-transparent background that looks ugly. If you don't care about those IE users, go for PNG.
BTW, if you want animations, go for GIF.
PNG is a 100% replacement for GIF files and is supported by all web browsers you are likely to encounter.
There are very, very few situations where GIF would be preferable. The most important one is animation--the GIF89a standard supports animation, and virtually every browser supports it, but the plain old PNG format does not--you would need to use MNG for that, which has limited browser support.
Virtually all browsers support single-bit transparency in PNG files (the type of transparency offered by the GIF format). There is a lack of support in IE6 for PNG's full 8-bit transparency, but that can be rectified for most situations by a little CSS magic.
If your PNG files are coming out larger than equivalent GIF files, it is almost certainly because your source image has more than 256 colors. GIF files are indexed to a maximum palette of 256 colors, while PNG files in most graphics programs are saved by default in a 24-bit lossless format. If file size is more important than accurate colors, save the file as an 8-bit indexed PNG and it should be equivalent to GIF or better.
It is possible to "hack" a GIF file to have more than 256 colors using a combination of animation frames with do-not-replace flags and multiple palettes, but this approach has been virtually forgotten about since the advent of PNG.
A major problem with GIFs are that it is a patent-encumbered format (EDIT: This is apparently no longer true). If you don't care about that, feel free to use GIFs. PNGs have a lot more flexibility over GIFs, particularly in the area of colorspace, but that flexibility often means you'll want to "optimize" the PNGs before publishing them. A web search should uncover tools for your platform for this.
Of course, if you want animation, GIF is the only way to go, since MNG was basically a non-starter for some reason.
"It may just be the tools I'm using, but GIF files usually seem to be a bit smaller than a comparible PNG, but using them just seems so 1987."
It probably is your tools. From the PNG FAQ:
"There are two main reasons behind this phenomenon: comparing apples and oranges (that is, not comparing the same image types), and using bad tools." continued...
But you could always try saving as both (using the same colour depth) and see which comes out smaller.
Of course, if you want to standardise on one graphic format for your site, PNG is likely to be the best one to use.
Personally I use gif's quite a bit for my images, as they work everywhere, obviously your transparency limitation is one key element that would direct someone towards a specific format.
I don't see any downfalls to using gif's.
If they get smaller and you have nothing to gain from using the features PNG offers (which is alpha channel transparency and more than 256 colors) then I see no reason why you should use PNG.
gif files will tend to be a little smaller since they don't support a transparency alpha channel (and maybe for some other reasons). Personally, I don't feel the size difference is really worth worrying about nearly as much as it used to. Most people are using the web with some sort of broadband now, so I doubt they will notice a difference.
It's probably more important to use the type of images that your manipulation tools work best with.
Plus, I like the ability to put an image on any background and have a drop shadow work, which points me more towards the png format.
I usually use gif's because of the size, but there is also png-8 which is 256 colours as well.
If you need fancy semi-transparent stuff then use png-24.
I usually use the 'save for web' feature in photoshop, which lets you fiddle with filetype, number of colours etc and see the result before you save. Of course I would use the smallest possible which still looks good in my eyes.
I use jpg for all non-transparent images. You can control the compression, which I like. I found this web site that compares the two. jpg is smaller and looks better.