Commons talk:File types

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository

This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot. Any sections older than 14 days are automatically archived to Commons talk:File types/Archive 1. Sections without timestamps are not archived.

Contents 1 Usage of MKV as a video container? 2 Proposal to enable uploads for DNG files 3 Tag with sample for sound files 4 The JPEG Description is confusing and contradictory 5 SWF and FLA formats

[edit] Usage of MKV as a video container?

Could the MKV file format allowed as a video container? Supposed the contained streams are using an open codec and that they are not subject to copyright, of course. Esby (talk) 09:18, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal to enable uploads for DNG files

See Commons:Village_pump#Proposal_to_enable_uploads_for_DNG_files. Dcoetzee (talk) 09:57, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Tag with sample for sound files

Need help with this. Please insert sample here

[edit] The JPEG Description is confusing and contradictory

The JPEG description is very confusing and contradictorily. It's basicaly saying, that you should upload your photos as PNG files: "If you have a choice of file formats in which to save a photograph, scan, or other such thing, save it as PNG". But the Contributing your own work guide is saying that you should use JPG for phtos: "Photography: JPG". Somehow this antilogy should be clarified. --PhilipMay (talk) 14:32, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

PNG is preferred for archival storage, when someone else may edit the file further in the future (since most edits to a JPEG file will involve irreversible generation loss, with certain very specialized and limited exceptions). However, for actually displaying photographic-type images within Wikipedia articles, JPEG format is in fact greatly preferred, since Wikimedia downsizing of photographic PNG images produces large thumbnails which take up a great amount of bandwidth, and can be slow to load... AnonMoos (talk) 22:26, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Well... You say: "PNG is preferred for archival storage" and "for actually displaying photographic-type images within Wikipedia articles, JPEG format is in fact greatly preferred". I am still confused. Should I upload my own photos in PNG or JPG format? The contributing your own work guide clearly sais JPG but when and in which case should I use PNG? Or should I upload the images in both formats? --PhilipMay (talk) 12:35, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Best would be uploading in both. This however depends also on your original files. If your files from the camera or scanner are already jpeg and not PNG then uploading the jpeg is the solution, cause saving in PNG wouldn't be of any benefit. However if you have your files in a lossless format like tiff or raw, then convert them to PNG and upload them as such, with a jpeg version to be used in articles, cause jpeg gets more sharpening on mediawiki.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 12:07, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the answer(-s). But this redundance of images sounds crasy for me. The (by far) best solution would be to generate sharpened JPG thumpnails for PNG images. Is this a big problem? What do you think? --PhilipMay (talk) 12:35, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Another problem is that PNGs over 12MP don't have previews. Sharpening need too much resources for PNGs. The question is whether you have your files in a compressed format or not.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 12:30, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I have my photos in the Nikon Raw format and I am using Lightroom for post processing. So the solution PNG + JPG should work for me. But this discussion is not only about me - it's about "how it should generally be done". I know that software development is not easy - but I think that my "PNG image to JPG thumpnails" idear should be implemented - if possible. --PhilipMay (talk) 12:35, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Converting to PNG is the best solution. This would give higher res non compressed files. Then another copy as jpeg. There is a technical problem with your solution. We need more processing power for that. Currently the thumbnails of PNGs are jpeg but over 12million pixels don't have Jpeg thumbnails. Sharpening needs even more processing power. So for the next few years please upload PNG and JPEG files. Oh forgot if it's from your camera then tiff would be better because it preserves the Metadata. So give it a shot and show us what you've got.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 13:57, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

What metadata does tiff retain that png cannot? —Darxus (talk) 16:50, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) The Commons is an online image archive mainly. I think it is a mistake to also try to be an archive for high-resolution, print-quality images. If that were made our goal, then over time we would have to greatly expand our server capacity, and accompanying bandwidth, maintenance, and staff expenses. That would only be possible if we allowed optional advertising to pay for it.

I think we should encourage jpg photos for the most part for now, and not extremely large ones that use many megabytes. Only certain historic or other important photos need to be in png, large-version, format.

I also think the Mediawiki software should use jpg thumbs for png photos. The png thumbs are often 50 kilobytes or more. This really slows down page loading for dialup users. A jpg thumb looks exactly the same as a png thumb to most people.

If the Mediawiki software can convert SVG images to png thumbs, then it can convert png images to jpg thumbs. It does not increase server load since the thumbs are cached.

If png photos had jpg thumbs, then I would encourage more uploading of png photos. But not until then. And even then we would not need extremely large versions of photos in order to be a good online image archive. Print-quality images should not be our goal until we have some discussion and consensus about the money needed to support it. --Timeshifter (talk) 08:44, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] SWF and FLA formats

For people working with Flash editors, including many modern artists and animators, their source FLA files and resulting SWF files are the only raw sources for their work, with no obvious conversion path to another format. Moreover, these formats are not encumbered, they don't yet have fully functional free toolchains, but there is a decent free player (Gnash).

Can SWF be accepted? If not, what is the best alternative for artists who want to freely license their work? [I suppose posting to IA and adding an external link.] Is there a place on commons to discuss how to move towards supporting embedded flash or other non-gif animation and interactive formats? +sj + 03:32, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Commons:Village pump --Timeshifter (talk) 08:09, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Is flash really an open file format? How well does it convert to svg? —Darxus (talk) 16:53, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't know. See en:Adobe Flash. --Timeshifter (talk) 23:22, 26 August 2009 (UTC)