Commons talk:File types/Archive 2

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Upload problem

ogg files will not upload using the upload from menus. What dir would it have uploaded to if it di? Maybe I can FTP it into the dir 24.249.248.8 15:34, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like an upload form problem. By the way, you have to be logged in to an account to upload... AnonMoos (talk) 11:32, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

encapsulated PostScript (.eps)

Is encapsulated PostScript a free format?—msh210 21:26, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

It's defined by Adobe, but that by itself wouldn't necessarily keep us from hosting such files here (we do host PDF files). However, the fact that just about everything that EPS files would be useful for here on Commons can also be done by SVG files, and that the SVG format is more "lightweight" than EPS and fully open, does mean that EPS files are unlikely to be allowed... AnonMoos (talk) 07:54, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Tiff

According to Special:Upload, tif and tiff are now allowed.[1] --Nemo 16:09, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

What on earth for?… ¦ Reisio (talk) 08:52, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
This file-format is with 16bit per channel and different layers interesting for interchange in production phase. --Kolossos (talk) 21:18, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Do we have the exact date of the change, so we can put it to the allowed list with a date and link to the reference? Esby (talk) 09:20, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

JPEG 2000

Even though we may not be able to generate thumbnails for them, someone raised a question on the village pump about allowing JPEG 2000 files on Commons, though I'm not sure if its legal enough for Commons. ViperSnake151 (talk) 02:32, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

That was me. I argue we should allow JPEG 2000 because many public domain sources (e.g. archive.org and several museums) archive their raw scans or photos in JP2 format. I actually have some ready to upload as soon as we turn this on. I don't think patents are a significant issue with JPEG 2000. Dcoetzee (talk) 07:42, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

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)

Good question. Anyone know why it's not permitted on Commons? mahanga (talk) 01:47, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

See UED77's comment in Archive 1#Video_containers. I'm not sure the Ogg files we have now all contain data in free formats, or whether we'll need to make sure even for Ogg in the future (I'd imagine so). As with so many problems, the resolution of bug 4421 could resolve the issue. ¦ Reisio (talk) 07:37, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

It's open(ly spec'd, like OpenGL, which is not the same as "free"). The Flash program can export to multiple video and raster formats, including animated GIF; the "conversion path" is as obvious as File > Export (or that plus converting an AVI or MOV, etc. to Ogg/Theora). ¦ Reisio (talk) 07:52, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

remove DjVu because non-open and pratical encoding problems

According to common definitions is not an open file format, see my entry about it in the [DjVu http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:DjVu]. In addition there is a practical problem that Free Software encoders are only simple, they cannot produce hight quality files (and the cause are the patented parts). Because of those two problems I suggest to disabllow DjVu as uploading fileformat. Ber-rename (talk) 12:40, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Originally, it was allowed as a convenient way of including raster scans of multi-page documents, back when PDF files were displayed as uninformative icons (i.e. not previewed). AnonMoos (talk) 14:13, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

How about OpenDocument?

Hi,

I just tried uploading a .ODS-format spreadsheet to include on the Wikipedia:Twin-Lead article, which allows someone to put in various parameters and see what the outcome was on the characteristic impedance... figured it'd be a useful tool, and a sensible place to keep it.

However, .ods isn't an accepted format for whatever reason. I could convert it to PDF or DjVu, but those aren't editable, and the output would not get re-calculated. Perhaps the OpenDocument formats might be worth considering?

Regards, Stuart Longland

Redhatter (talk) 00:48, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

.jpe extension

I was wondering, is there any particular reason why JPEG images with the extension .jpe don't work here? Andros 1337 (talk) 01:12, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Probably not any very profound or essential reason. However, ".JPE" is a little lame -- ca. 1994, the semi-traditional Unix extension (allowing long filenames) was ".jpeg" while the DOS extension (confined to three letters) was ".JPG"; ".JPE" is neither one nor the other. You can change the uploaded file name to be different from the local disk file name at the last minute in the upload form. AnonMoos (talk) 03:50, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Blender 3D .blend files

Is there a good reason not to allow .blend files created by Blender? As far as I can tell, there's nothing proprietary about the format. This would be helpful to me because I'm working on a Blender textbook at WikiBooks. --Stepheng3 (talk) 17:17, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I would like to add my vote to the above. I have been doing some diagrams for the Blender 3D: Noob to Pro book, and while I can upload the finished renders in PNG or JPEG format, I would like to offer up the original .blend files for others to hack on as well. Ldo (talk) 22:51, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Wikimedia software is probably never going to generate thumbnails for such images, but they might fit in with the "Commons:Restricted uploads" proposal (see below). AnonMoos (talk) 00:24, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
Thumbnails could be added by the uploader as a separe file ? Lionel Allorge (talk) 21:19, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
Meanwhile maybe you can upload your .blend files to blenderstuff.org or to BlendSwap. Lionel Allorge (talk) 21:19, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

jpg thumbnails

JPG thumbnail, slightly sharp?

Note that currently JPEG thumbnails receive extra sharpening, while PNG thumbnails don't. Hence, uploading in both formats may be a good idea if the PNG thumbnails look a bit blurry.

If this is not the past? Please give a example image for this. For text this is not a solution!? In addition, I think that PNG is now sharper than in the past. -- Perhelion (talk) 19:33, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Category:Test patterns has a few patterns in both JPG and PNG versions (scroll down), and the JPG thumbnails do look slightly sharpened compared to the PNGs. I have placed two examples to the right, but also compare the related File:Telefunken FuBK.jpg and File:Telefunken FuBK test pattern.svg. I am unsure what you mean by text. -84user (talk) 22:24, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Lossless Video format missing

There seems to be one kind of media that is missing from the kinds supported here, namely a Lossless video format. I think this is important for archival and derivative making purposes, but unfortunately there does not seem to be such a free format available. On the other hand all the bits necessary are available. One could prescribe a matroska profile (as google is doing with WebM) which would contain FFV1 or HuffYuv video stream and FLAC audio. (probably one would have to implement a bot based 'thumbnailing' service which would produce Ogg/Theora preview clips of the lossless videos) What do you think? How feasible is this? How useful do you think this would be? --Inkwina (talk · contribs) 20:37, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

You do know that lossless video is liable to generate huge files, at any reasonable combination of pixel resolution and frame rate? AnonMoos (talk) 23:21, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
It is true that encoding to lossless video can generate large files, but there are exceptions such as animated illustrations and screen captures which generate "normal" size files. How about offer lossless for advanced users (similar to how TIFF is mainly used by image restorers)? I for one would find it useful, having created a few Lagarith Lossless encodings which otherwise demonstrate annoying artifacts when encoded to Theora. See also my slightly related experiments in Help talk:Converting video#Using GraphEdit to convert Windows Media Video. -84user (talk) 00:04, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Good luck, but I think that between animated GIF on the low end and OGV on the high end, it's not necessarily widely felt that there's an important gap that needs to be filled between the other two... AnonMoos (talk) 23:52, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
I think there is - animated GIFs are severely limited by the 256 colour restriction (e.g. you can't antialias paths adequately). I think MNG would be a good format to support for the purposes described by 84user. As an aside I'm still pushing for DNG support for raw versions of photographs. Dcoetzee (talk) 00:49, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
However, MNG never really caught on, apparently at least partly because it was squeezed between animated GIF and full-video. The newer option being proposed is APNG. AnonMoos (talk) 01:04, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Expanding file type support

Our current limitations on file types have the effect that we cannot retain sources for many file formats. This seriously damages the ability of end users to re-use content (e.g. a bitmap of a 3D image is dramatically less useful than a source file that can be rendered and edited in Blender). The primary reason these files aren't consistently supported are security concerns. For this reason, I've proposed Commons:Restricted uploads. The page also lists some possible alternative approaches. I'd appreciate feedback.--Eloquence (talk) 19:54, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree. We need xcfs for coming up with cheaper printing alternatives of the same material. AshLin (talk) 06:17, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Recommended XCF complete missing

Is lacking any information, with except of that mention. --Perhelion (talk) 20:51, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

XCF is for uploading raw GIMP working files, but the Wikimedia software doesn't generate thumbnails for them (unless something has changed relatively recently). AnonMoos (talk) 00:27, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Request: Open Document Format for Spreadsheats (*.ods)

For a project I need to upload a *.ods file to Commons, so that it can be edited by a multitude of contributors, on a public domain basis. *.ods is part of the Open Document Format (like *.odt etc.) and is an Open Standard. I would like to ask to enable it for uploading to Commons. The aim of the project is to generate a list of postal codes for a multitude of Cities and Counties, for use in Openstreetmap-based navigation programs, and probably for use on Wikipedia/Mediawiki as well. Thank you, Longbow4u (talk) 10:40, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Probably more likely to be allowed under "restricted uploads" (see above) than as a basic file type... AnonMoos (talk) 17:36, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Chemical markup language files missing

For molecules, the 3D form is of great interest (often more than 2D structure plots). I therefore want to add some http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_Markup_Language (CML)-versions of 2D chemical structures. These can be created wit the Open Source and free Software http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avogadro_%28software%29 . My idea is to link the CML files with the 2D structure plots so that people are easily able to open it in Avogadro (or another program) and can see how the molecule looks in reality (3D) and they can even edit it. For example, I created a 3D version of this structure: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Lignin_structure.svg This cost me some time and I want that other can benefit from that work. I therefore need that commons allows files with the extension .cml. --Muso (talk) 00:23, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Probably more likely to be allowed under "restricted uploads" (see above) than as a basic file type... AnonMoos (talk) 05:54, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
When will the feature be available? The proposal was made more than half a year ago and I cannot find any news regarding this topic. How can I at least vote for this feature? --Muso (talk) 14:42, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Support for .pdf files

I successfully uploaded a .pdf file, see: File:World Population 2010.pdf. I chose this format because I wanted to retain resolution from a chart I created in Excel. Unfortunately the thumbnail version is very low resolution, and I don’t see .pdf mentioned as a supported commons file format. How nan I learn more about commons support for .pdf? Can you suggest a preferred format for Excel crated graphs? Thanks --Lbeaumont (talk) 15:25, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

PDF files are displayed a whole page at a time (not cropped to a particular region of the page) with JPEG thumbnails. The preferred format here for such charts is SVG... AnonMoos (talk) 17:28, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
I'm also not much informed (seams limited to upright format). You could better ask (for converting) in the COM:GL/ILL. -- Perhelion (talk) 10:10, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

What is a reasonable way to upload a wikiversity pdf fullscreen presentation + source ?

i've started creating a Wikiversity course wikiversity:Special relativity and steps towards general relativity. For people interested in the (plans for) different types of "learning resources" at Wikiversity, see wikiversity:Help:TYPES. In particular, Wikiversity is not supposed to compete with Wikipedia articles or Wikibooks books - see e.g. wikiversity:Help:Article.

The first half of the material for the course consists of:

  • original source:
    • latex .tex file (my work), 110kb of text
    • xfig .fig source files (my work), typically 1-2kb of text (tiny!)
    • one-line script (my work) for creating a partial or full screen viewable .pdf file, for a lecture-type live presentation by a teacher
  • non-original source:
    • WMCommons image files, mostly .svg, some other formats
    • a few en.Wikipedia static image files
    • one WMCommons animated .gif file
  • intermediate files:
    • Commons (+w:) files, mostly converted locally to .eps postscript files
    • .eps files rendered from .fig source files
  • final:
    • two pdf files (one for special relativity = SR, one for a few steps towards general relativity = GR)

So my question is, what is the best way to upload the original material and some of the rendered material in a way that makes it relatively wikified - other Wikimedians can edit, check the edit history, discuss on the talk page, etc. - but also not too difficult to recreate the final "usable" pdf files, i.e. what sort of script should i provide and how should it be uploaded? My tentative answers are:

  • The .fig files are in principle renderable output as svg, so probably uploading an svg rendered output version + the source .fig text together should be easy - just take a long time because there are many :). Some of them could potentially be used in Wikipedia articles - where they were absent (where i was unhappy with the actual figure, the question of the preferred image to use would have to be discussed on a case-by-case basis at those WP article talk pages). So, upload to Commons?
  • The latex source file could be uploaded verbatim as a slightly big text file - 110kb is not so big. So, upload it to Commons as verbatim wiki page content along with the rendered pdf files?
  • Uploading the two rendered pdf files to Commons once all the source files are in place should presumably be acceptable on the grounds that it's used in another WMF project, and it's a format that IMHO is optimal for physics/maths type Wikiversity lecture material.
  • The script is probably the biggest question. For security reasons, my guess is that a script should certainly not be uploaded as an executable file. The script is presently just a commented-out line in the .tex file, a chain of latex etc commands which can be easily copied/pasted to the command line. However, this assumes that all the image files have been converted to .eps files and placed in (or softlinked to) an appropriate local directory. A minimal script should offer the options of downloading image files from Commons/WP and/or producing .eps files from the .fig files, while not encouraging excessive use of bandwidth (e.g. downloading 40 URLs each time the script is executed without any download delay and repeatedly executing the script after every minor change). My feeling is that what needs to be done in the script is something like the question of a package management system for an operating system, e.g. apt in debian, so it would make sense to have a fairly intelligent, well-developed system and not just a plain shell script. On the other hand, maybe a plain script is enough to get started, and later on a more scalable system could be developed if this approach starts being seriously used in Wikiversity. People interested in improving the package would keep their own copy of a script and comment in/out files that they know have been modified. Each editor would have to be careful not to accidentally include a non-freely licensed image.
  • intermediate files: Uploading intermediate files - especially in .eps format - to Commons sounds like a bad idea. On the other hand, reconverting files locally requires some more complexity in the script - i.e. possibly a download plus a conversion rather than just a download. My guess is that these should not be uploaded.

i'd rather get some feedback on this before starting any uploads. Boud (talk) 11:11, 29 June 2011 (UTC) (minor correction: "rendered" was incorrect Boud (talk) 09:29, 6 July 2011 (UTC))

i guess i can follow the User:Nichalp/Upload script example for uploading a script as a subpage. Any more alternative recommendations? Boud (talk) 13:20, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
I am sorry but I find your post rather confusing and way to long (by the way, length of your post is inversely related to how many people will bother to read it). It is unclear if you are wandering about mechanics of uploading large number of files or how to handle different file types. If you are uploading large volume of images I would suggest using Commons:Tools/Commonist before looking into other tools. If you have very large volume (thousands) than a specialized bot might be able to help you, if you ask here. As for file types, you should first read Commons:File types for files supported by commons and other wikimedia projects. The file types you mentioned in your post do not seem to be covered in this list. I would suggest to convert latex to either wiki-text and use directly or change to PDF and upload to commons. I am unfamiliar with xfig but I assume you can export it to SVG. Hope this helps. --Jarekt (talk) 16:37, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Sorry that you found my post confusing. i stated in the section title and in the first sentence that this relates to a Wikiversity course and linked to it. i guess i assumed that the reader would be familiar with the standard way of producing scientific (physics, astronomy, mathematics) documents, i.e. w:LaTeX, so i didn't think of stating overtly that the final files are produced in a chain from original source files and non-original source files, through intermediate files, out to final files in pdf form. It's somewhat analogous to wiki source text which is output to final html form, but a better analogy is the difference between a .tar.gz software source package and an executable binary created from the .tar.gz file. In the same way that it would be pointless to expect or hope users to edit the binary executable directly, it would be pointless to expect or hope Wikimedians to edit the two final pdf files for the course. Instead, the source files - maybe also intermediate files - should be available for editing, while the final pdf files should be available for people who just want to use them.
Yes, i did read the article which this talk page is attached to before adding my question. I didn't see it answering my overall question.
Regarding your specific responses:
original files - .fig files: It sounds like uploading the output .svg file along with the .fig source as wiki-text source associated with the file would be reasonable, so that people can easily edit the .fig source and then upload the new output .svg file, or alternatively edit the .svg. On a quick test i made, the .svg format file is 3 times the size of the .fig format file, because of all the xml-like tags. Xfig does not seem to import .svg, only export it, but if people edit the .svg version, a discussion of tools to use and preferred format could take place on the wikipage of the file being worked on.
original files - latex/full package/pdf: converting w:LaTeX source to mediawiki-text and then from mediawiki-text to a fullscreen presentation in a browser is an interesting idea. i suspect that the conversion would only be semi-automated - it would probably be easier to write directly in mediawiki-text, using internal and external wikilinks, <math>the math tag</math> for the main content of the what-was-LaTeX-source, and the [[File:filename.fmt|pixel width etc]] way to embed Commons figures (image files). This would need a mediawiki-text to fullscreen presentation convertor, and it seems from this D'Arcy Norman blog post that this 'Wikipedia Presentation' script can be installed for use with greasemonkey, and then be used for viewing a mediawiki-text page as a fullscreen presentation. Some problems: the script seems to be non-free, since no licence is stated, there seem to be some bugs, and it doesn't seem to have been updated for five years.
Do you or anyone know of a free-software mediawiki-text to fullscreen slide presentation converter that is actively maintained? Using a non-free script would defeat the whole point of contributing to WMF projects: we don't want someone to come along later and tell us we can no longer use/modify/redistribute the tools we use.
In any case, in the short term, uploading the latex source + a script (for creating the pdf file from all the source files) as verbatim content in wiki-text that is associated with an uploaded .pdf file is probably the best approach, along with a recommendation that the long-term format might better be mediawiki-text + a free-software converter to fullscreen slide presentation format. As long as the licensing is clear, anyone who has the time to do a conversion will be able to do it.
Boud (talk) 09:29, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Please add new formats: KML, FLA, ODP & OO2

Please allow uploads of KML, FLA, and OO2 filetypes. --SJ+ 18:04, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Comment added: https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2089 --SJ+
What to compile FLA with, and what into? If it can be compiled into a free format accepted at Commons, but not using free software, check Commons:Restricted uploads. --AVRS (talk) 21:15, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Epub?

What (if any) are the thoughts/plans on adding epub files? Jbarta (talk) 19:07, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Where are the archives?

The first post on this page is 16 April 2011, and the last post in /Archive 1 is dated 1 October 2008. Where are all the posts in between? Edokter (talk) — 12:51, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting keep.svg Fixed. The new archive page name had been set to “20” instead of “2”, and the link still pointed to “1”. Added a box with links to both pages. --AVRS (talk) 16:02, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

WebM

When is WebM going to be supported? The difference between WebM and Theora is basically the difference between VP3 and VP8. WebM can challenge H.264 whereas Theora can't, and because of that eventually WebM will become the open source standard. "VP8 has a better quality per bit rate than Theora." -Mike Shaver, Mozilla VP Engineering.--Brian Dell (talk) 23:24, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

I second that, although I don't know where to ask for more info. Beuc (talk) 13:19, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
bugzilla:30653bugzilla:27699. --AVRS (talk) 14:36, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
+1 - KTucker (talk) 00:22, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Is there a reason .webm / VP8 are not allowable upload formats? - KTucker (talk) 22:21, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

JPEG 2000 ?

What's the position on JPEG 2000 ?

I'm currently gathering up some engraved images from 19th century books scanned by the Internet Archive, which uses JP2 for its raw scans.

Is JPEG 2000 allowable here, or are there patent problems? (Or software availability problems on some platforms?)

Someone raised this question once before in the talk archives of this page, but didn't appear to receive a very definite answer. Jheald (talk) 17:14, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't know that there are any major stumbling blocks which would prevent it from being used here. However, it doesn't seem to have caught on very widely, and adding it as an accepted format would take Wikimedia developers' time and attention from other issues. If you want to get the format added, you should explain why adding it is a real priority... AnonMoos (talk) 08:16, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Ogg, .ogg or .ogv video?

Yes check.svg Resolved

I have been trying for days to upload a video as .ogv, I will try .ogg extension next. 1024 x 708, 67mb, no sound track.--Canoe1967 (talk) 19:14, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Was there any error message when you tried with “.ogv”? Note that files can be renamed later. --AVRS (talk)
The blue upload spinner just goes at normal speed for hours, then I get the yellow upload failed triangle. I have the file on a cloud storage server if someone wants to look at it and possibly upload for me. I can fix the PD tag, etc. after you upload.

(deleted url, file removed)

I may try as jpg extension next and have it renamed after upload.--Canoe1967 (talk) 14:59, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
I finally got it to ulpoad. It seems that Handbrake uses Matroska which isn't allowed yet.--Canoe1967 (talk) 16:07, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Why not WAV files? There's no LOSSLESS format allowed?

It seems crazy WAV files are not allowed. There's this new thing called "Windows". It's an operating system. A lot of people use it. A few people would like to share lossless sound files that work on Windows computers. Ywaz (talk) 13:11, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

It's not free!? -- πϵρήλιο 13:30, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
1) WAV is proprietary. 2) Lossless audio/video files can get very large very quickly... AnonMoos (talk) 13:34, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
FLAC in Ogg container is supported (do not confuse with FLAC in FLAC container or Ogg/Vorbis). For some reason, the page says FLAC is not supported when referring to the plan of adding .flac → .oga conversion. Somebody please correct this. --AVRS (talk) 07:57, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
FLAC is a free file format (e.g. openly described and free of charge), so you can play FLAC files on Windows, or convert them into WAV, for free. This is a web site, it needs compression: even JPEG is still used! --AVRS (talk) 08:08, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Oops, I forgot FLACs could be embedded in OGGs for some reason. Need to move a couple files from Commons Archive to here. Dcoetzee (talk) 19:18, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

FLAC failed

This file: File:Alexander Misharin resignation address.ogv doesn't play sound for all browser plugins. I re-converted with vorbis audio and the new file (see other versions) seems to work better. I don't know why, but someone may wish to look into the reason and possibly fix the broken file before it gets deleted. It is far smaller. I couldn't replace it so I had to upload a new one.--Canoe1967 (talk) 14:58, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

That’s because browsers don’t support FLAC. Just do what you would with an image of over 12.5 megapixels. --AVRS (talk) 12:32, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
But note that the smaller file’s picture quality is lower. There is a site for originals in non-free formats somewhere… --AVRS (talk) 12:41, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
In that case should we put a note about using FLAC in uploads because browsers can't hear them? A list of which browsers can hear and which can't may help as well. I think I converted mine from the original .flv link that the uploader provided.--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:38, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
My note.
Quality depends on settings, not just the format. I mentioned Commons Archive because both Theora is (like Vorbis) lossy, so the file could be transcoded later with a better video codec (e.g. WebM, or something that appears in the future) from a stored original. You can also combine the Theora and FLAC tracks in one file, if the worse one is to be deleted.
--AVRS (talk) 14:05, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for clarification and the edits to the project page. I am going to wikify the bad file again for deletion. http://amisharin.ru/objects/blog/1336998272Misharin_otstavka_.flv is the original .flv if you would like to look at that format. I think my working version may be of good enough quality to remain for now.--Canoe1967 (talk) 19:38, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --Canoe1967 (talk) 02:18, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Discussion of PNG thumbnails on Commons:File types page

New PNG thumbnailing software, supposedly better than the old software, has been installed since that passage was written... AnonMoos (talk) 00:11, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Feel free to re-word it if you wish. If it is reverted then edit war over it until all involved are blocked. After the blocks expire then seek consensus. I think that is normal commons procedure.--Canoe1967 (talk) 02:15, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
If I felt confident that I understood the relevant implications of the software change, then I would have reworded already... AnonMoos (talk) 03:29, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
I added a possibly out-dated note for now.--Canoe1967 (talk) 04:50, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Support for Ogg Opus audio files (*.opus)

Probably someone should open a feature request in the bug tracker for this. I'm not sure whether it is sensible to wait for some official browser support in order to be able to use it with support for inline playback right from the start..?
In any case, I want to create some first awareness for the format since noone here seems to be talking about it yet.

Opus is the upcoming IETF internet standard for lossy audio. In terms of audio quality it is already better than practically any other codec in use today and has probably an unparalleled set of useful features. It is a better replacement for both (Ogg)Vorbis and Speex. (And of course everything is free software, open standard, royalty free and all.)
Perspectives for widespread support are good, likely much better than with Vorbis that never made it to something as official as an IETF RFC. Support is already there in Firefox 15 beta (final release in August) and other software based on Gecko version >15 and support in other applications is growing fast.
The final format specification and version 1.0 of the reference software are going to be released in the next few weeks. It is finished and ready for use right now though; it is basically just waiting to get its RFC number. So maybe we can have it supported at official primetime...--Flugaal (talk) 23:33, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

GIF animation clamping

It should be mentioned that GIF animation may be "clamped" in certain browsers (>20 FPS if IE and >100 FPS in Firefox). See WebKit bug 26455 for details. Dispenser (talk) 21:58, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Support of WebM files

Hello.

When the support of WebM files will be available ? --ComputerHotline (talk) 09:47, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

WebM support, as indicated in COM:WEBM, is tied to the deployment of the mw:TimedMediaHandler extension. You can see the status updates on this page. Jean-Fred (talk) 12:34, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
Now added :) --SJ+ 02:16, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

OpenDocument for wikibooks

I know it has been requested before but not with this particular reason. I need to upload some kind of editable document file for "my" wikibook (In Swedish: http://sv.wikibooks.org/wiki/Matematik_f%C3%B6r_%C3%A5rskurs_7-9/). More specifically ods-files as examles (as it is a math book) and some kind of editable odt document. If a specific file is just to be read or printed then I could just use a normal page or a pdf but if I am to make something that the reader can download and start to edit (such as a work sheets) then those formats wont do and odt would be good. If I also do make some odp files that I would like to share to be used by other teachers then that format might be needed too. I hope someone could help me raise this question or give me some alternate solution. Averater (talk) 12:03, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Found this: https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2089 . It seems the same reason has been raised before (since 2005!). But I still need help finding a good solution of how to add these kind of files to my wikibook. Averater (talk) 12:16, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Maybe you could use http://commonsarchive.org/wiki/Main_Page as an alternative. --McZusatz (talk) 12:25, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

"hard limit of 12.5 megapixels" for PNG and GIF

This was actually raised a few months back (though not for animated GIFs?)... AnonMoos (talk) 07:21, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

File:Test.animation.25MP.gif
25MP animated gif
Worksforme?! --McZusatz (talk) 11:26, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Compression

Regarding compression for PDF files: I'm thinking about uploading rather big files of book scans in PDF format, not for viewing but for downloading. It would be ressource saving on both ends to have them compressed (e.g. GZIP-Format). Is this ok & if not, where is the problem? --WolfgangRieger (talk) 16:32, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Gzip is not allowed because you can basically put everything into it. (Viruses as well) --McZusatz (talk) 18:12, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
Does not compute ... The contents could easily be checked for allowed file types only. BTW, PDFs can also have harmful content. --WolfgangRieger (talk) 19:20, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
Also files should be able to be embedded into articles directly. .gz wont allow thumbnails. --McZusatz (talk) 23:09, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
WolfgangRieger -- since PDF version 1.2, PDF can have internal "Flate" compression, which is the same algorithm as used in gzip. Also, in many cases, the content of HTTP messages delivered across the Internet can be gzipped and gunzipped on the fly... AnonMoos (talk) 02:57, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, I was not thinking. The contained image data of the scans is already compressed and there would be no big saving. Silly me. --WolfgangRieger (talk) 09:41, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Any priority for Google Summer of Code projects?

The Wikimedia Foundation is planning to participate again at Google Summer of Code. There is a discussion about proposing projects to support x3d or KML in Commons. What about having a catch-all entry for unsupported file types in Commons/MediaWiki? We could explicitly point to KML, x3d and link to the full list here. Are there other formats that we should highlight to potential GSOC students? Also if you want to volunteer as mentor that would be great.--Qgil (talk) 14:50, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

See COM:UNSUPPORTED and its companion bug bugzilla:42725 − all formats there have been discussed before (I can try to dig the Village Pump discussions if needed).
I think there is a strong case for Raw image format (DNG) − bugzilla:19153 ; and I suppose Wikisource folks might be super interested in a ePub format − better check with them first if it is still needed.
Jean-Fred (talk) 14:56, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
Ah, I misread your post − I thought you meant a catch all entry here or on bugzilla, not for the GSOC. Sory for the confusion. Jean-Fred (talk) 10:48, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

VP8 now patent encumbered

Press release

Now Google has licensed for MPEG LA patents for their use in VP8 it's no longer free in the sense of being unencumbered by patents. It's still royalty free, though the precise license terms for sublicensees are unavailable: [2]. But that's the same as h.264 which is free for non-commercial use, but not used here because of patents. It may be subject to further licensing requirements, or even be banned, as Nokia are suing HTC over VP8 in Europe:[3][4].

The question is does anything need to be done about this? I would prefer it if the policy were able to support patent encumbered but free formats, especially h.264. But if that's not possible then should the use of VP8 be re-examined? --JohnBlackburne (talk) 20:19, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

It seems that encumbrance hasn't been confirmed yet? Check w:JPEG#Patent_issues. If you have FUD, you can keep the originals and upload also Theora versions.
Free for noncommercial use is not enough.
--AVRS (talk) 09:07, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
At least we should wait until "We anticipate having the terms of our sublicense ready in the next few weeks. When those terms are ready we will blog about them here, so watch this space." [Quote from 1] --McZusatz (talk) 18:22, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Here's what looks like a draft agreement: [5]. Not sure when it went up as it's undated and I've just noticed it. There's also a FAQ [6]. Quite interesting and unlike typical open source licenses.--JohnBlackburne (talk) 22:40, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

SWF not generatable with free tools?

This is incorrect: there's Flex. This was created by Adobe, initially as a paid product but for most of its life as an Adobe product it was free. But recently Adobe handed it to Apache, and it is now available from them under the Apache License [7]. Flex being command line is not everyone's first choice for making Flash/SWF/AIR content but that's a user preference, not a limitation of the software which supports all Flash/SWF/AIR features.--JohnBlackburne (talk) 19:01, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

I didn't say it is not generatable at all. I mean not all SWF files are playable with free software; not sure about generation. --AVRS (talk) 19:25, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Is it recommended to convert TIFF files to PNG?

My understanding is that they're both lossless, so a conversion should be lossless as well, right? If PNG is preferred over TIFF, then would it make sense to recommend conversion in the guideline? Curly Turkey (talk) 21:47, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

TIFF files can contain metadata and multipage documents. If none of this applies to the files, PNG is preferred. --McZusatz (talk) 22:52, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
PNG can also have much of the metadata that Tiff files can. The lossless compression algorithm used by PNGs often results in smaller sizes then the compression (or lack thereof) often used by Tiff files. On the other hand tiff is favoured by some archive folks, and they have tools that work with tiff (I guess). When you upload a tiff file to commons the thumbnails are pngs, so might as well just keep the format the same as whatever format the file is originally in. Bawolff (talk) 05:30, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
No, thumbnails are not displayed as PNGs. They are displayed as JPEGs. I checked. And that's actually the reason I say you shouldn't change them. TIFFs allow us to do something PNGs don't, having a lossless archive copy while using allowing lossy compression for download. For photographs, the difference is extremely large.
One thing you can do, though (assuming the file isn't mirroring some other file) is optimize the compression. There seem to be a lot of TIFFs that are completely uncompressed. I wouldn't do this for no reason, but if you are editing the file, I don't see any reason why you shouldn't. I personally recommend running the edited file through FileOptimizer before uploading. (To keep the metadata, make sure keep metadata is enabled in the JPEG tab of the options.) Trlkly (talk) 17:42, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
Sorry you're right, not sure what I was thinking. Default is JPEG. It is actually possible to request a png thumbnail using the lossy=0 parameter. ::::Compare:
JPEG thumb vs PNG thumb.
Bawolff (talk) 22:51, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
Too bad that doesn't work for other types of files. It'd be fun to use lossy=1 to make a large PNG render as a JPEG. Trlkly (talk) 01:30, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
{{Compressed version}} apparently doesn't care about the achive format, you could use it also for lossy JPEG thumbnails of PNG images. BTW, I "think" (please correct me) that TIFF compression can be lossy (and actually permits JPEG), that could be a very bad idea for {{LargeTIFF}} or similar archived versions. –Be..anyone (talk) 12:10, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

RFC to Allow MP4

Just a heads up, there's a discussion at Commons:Requests_for_comment/MP4_Video to allow MP4 video (A patented format that is currently disallowed on that basis) on Wikimedia. Its a complex issue (in my opinion anyways), and I encourage everyone to read the RFC and comment about how they feel. Bawolff (talk) 05:22, 16 January 2014 (UTC)