Farbfeld – A suckless image format

http://tools.suckless.org/farbfeld/

by frign • 11 years ago

112 87 11 years ago

tools.suckless.org

sago3• 11 years ago

Having only 2222 images means it is a bit limited for me, but I appreciate the point made that too many file formats have 'internal compression'.

nness• 11 years ago

2222 images?

sago3• 11 years ago

The color depth, 8 bit per pixel, with 2 bit per channel. But that was my misreading, it is 64 bits per pixel. So not 'too limited' at all.

frign14• 11 years ago

Actually, you can have images with up to (2^32-1)(2^32-1) pixels. Given each pixel stores 64 Bits of data, there are 2^64 combinations for each pixel, yielding in the total number of possible images as:

(2^64)^((2^32-1)(2^32-1)) ~ 10^(10^21)

sago3• 11 years ago

I meant 2R,2G,2B,2A images, i.e. 8 bit per pixel. That was my misreading - it is actually 2 bytes per channel, (I'm used to image color depths being quoted in bits.) I need to read more carefully, sorry.

zimpenfish2• 11 years ago

Additionally, functionality like alpha channels and 16-Bit color depth can only be achieved via extensions

PPM explicitly supports 16 bit colour depth.

http://netpbm.sourceforge.net/doc/ppm.html says "Each sample is represented in pure binary by either 1 or 2 bytes."

And PAM explicitly supports transparency (which I guess you could consider an "extension" but since it's handled by libnetpbm, I'd quibble.)

http://netpbm.sourceforge.net/doc/pam.html says "Each of the visual image formats mentioned above has a variation that contains transparency information."

Also,

Due to it being a textual format it also lacks the desired compression characteristics.

...isn't true since P6 is binary (excepting the header which is likely trivial on a normal sized image).

mark4o• 11 years ago

If you're going to go with 16 bits per component, please at least increase the color gamut. sRGB is fine if you can only dedicate 8 bits per component, but with 16 bits per component the extra depth is more useful as an increase in the color space rather than only greater precision.

frign14• 11 years ago

I've investigated this topic for a while. I've been thinking about adding a mandated wide gamut color space. Even though the wide color spaces "destroy" accuracy in small gradients, it doesn't matter when using 16-Bit. And because farbfeld is 16 Bits, it would definitely be an option.

Care to hit me with a mail (you can find it at the bottom of the page) so I can write you in a more sensible way what I've been thinking. Maybe you can help me decide on which color space to use (Adobe RGB, ProPhoto RGB, ...).

userbinator2• 11 years ago

Current image formats have integrated compression, making it complicated to read the image data. One is forced to use complex libraries like libpng, libjpeg, libjpeg-turbo, giflib and others

...

Dependencies

libpng

libjpeg-turbo

That's a bit of a non sequitur.

Aside from that, the arguments put forth aren't very convincing; the "integrated compression" is what makes compressed formats more efficient, since these are specialised compression algorithms adapted for image data. PNG, for example, uses a differencing filter. I think me and many others have tried ZIP'ing or RAR'ing uncompressed BMPs before, and found the compression is not as good as PNG. This is not even mentioning the possibility of lossy compression.

pjscott2• 11 years ago

The file format is trivial, and can be read and written without any dependencies.

The converter programs jpg2ff and ff2jpg depend on libjpeg-turbo to read and write JPEG files.

The converter programs png2ff and ff2png depend on libpng to read and write PNG files.

bnolsen2• 11 years ago

would be nice to be able to verify the header before running it through decompression. i can easily get a hold of 150MP images and they can be a pain to hack on.

frign14• 11 years ago

If you just want to read in the header data, it should be sufficient if you just piped the decompressed data to your "header-checker" like this

bzip2 < giantimage.ff.bz2 | header-checker

Inside the header checker, you just read in the first 16 Bytes ("farbfeld" + width + height), do whatever you like with the data and exit. bzip2 would then receive an SIGPIPE. Up until this point, it would have probably filled the pipe buffer (~16K) with data and then blocked.

Receiving SIGPIPE, I'm certain bzip2(1) will cancel any further decompression attempts.

You see, you could even carry on with your image-processing in case you like the header data and want to proceed. The nice pipe-system already handles that for you. :)

majewsky• 11 years ago

s/EPIPE/SIGPIPE/, but otherwise, I agree. :)

kedean• 11 years ago

I think what he's saying is that you must decompress the entire thing before you can look at those headers. If all you want is the width and height, you still might have to decompress a gigantic image, which is lots of wasted work and time.

bnolsen2• 11 years ago

i suspect a nogo programmatically, and then bring in windows...

pcwalton5• 11 years ago

I'm pretty skeptical of using bzip2 as the entropy coder compared to DEFLATE as used in PNG. bzip2 is really slow. Also I would hope that an image format designed in 2016 would admit some degree of parallel decoding, but by leaning so heavily on a slow entropy coder they also killed all parallelism opportunities.

Browsers routinely spend as much time in image decoding as they do in layout, so this matters.

If you want a purely entropy coded format with a trivial, easily memorizable file format, just use PNG with all scanlines set to the None filter, one IDAT chunk, and one IEND chunk. Totally trivial, and probably simpler because DEFLATE is a relatively simple format.

JoshTriplett• 11 years ago

I'm pretty skeptical of using bzip2 as the entropy coder compared to DEFLATE as used in PNG.

Or compared to xz. bzip2 seems completely obsolete: gzip provides much faster compression and decompression, and xz provides better compression ratios with faster decompression. Not to mention new algorithms like brotli.

jacobolus• 11 years ago

Brotli is a text/markup compression codec with a big dictionary of English words and chunks of html. Why would you use it for binary data?

zenojevski2• 11 years ago

The simplicity of the approach means that, given that the compressor is not baked into the format, it is readily exchangeable without having to change Farbfeld. In addition, nothing stops someone from creating an optimized compression format and bring it in with the same ease.

pcwalton5• 11 years ago

Why not just have that compression format be PNG filtering + DEFLATE? PNG filtering is extremely simple and is probably implementable in two dozen lines of code. It's nothing compared to the complexity of the entropy coder.

At that point you might as well just be a subset of PNG, which is nice for interoperability anyway.

pjscott2• 11 years ago

I was skeptical about the claims of competitive compression, but in a handful of experiments it looks like farbfeld+bzip2 got slightly better compression than png (after running through pngcrush). Decoding took an unfortunate number of milliseconds, though.

(Give it a try! The tools are right there in the git repo, and quite easy to use.)

pcwalton5• 11 years ago

I'm sure the designers of PNG were aware that slower entropy coders that gave better compression ratios existed. But there's a reason they didn't choose them: bzip2 is 5x slower than DEFLATE even on the lowest setting. Scanline filtering, on the other hand, is fast, amenable to SIMD, and even parallelizable if the image is properly encoded. It's also easy: the only thing I don't remember off the top of my head is the order ties are broken in the Paeth filter.

bzip2 is an especially poor choice in 2016 given that it's inferior to LZMA in both speed and quality.

frign14• 11 years ago

thing is, bzip2 is widespread, unlike lzma not everybody has.

on a technical side, lzma is a better choice. I might add a lzma recommendation, however, in soma cases lzma performs worse than bzip2.

also, decompression speeds matter, not compression speeds.

in the end, use what you prefer. the compression is not mandated by the spec. the main use for farbfeld is also rather thought to be as a piping format. it could also be used for storage, but that's not the main point.

mtklein2• 11 years ago

Left over Up over UpperLeft for Paeth

That's a,b,c when your pixels are labeled

    c b
    a d

the same order you write the predictor p = a+b-c.

rasz_pl3• 11 years ago

endianness ...

krasin• 11 years ago

yeah, that was a bit strange. By choosing Little Endian, the author would achieve the ability to mmap an uncompressed image file to memory and then use it directly like an array in all contemporary hardware architectures. Not that it's a big deal, but I fail to see why would anyone choose Big Endian in 2016.

irascible• 11 years ago

One of the few legit criticisms in this thread.

rasz_pl3• 11 years ago

Choosing big endian is bad enough, but they dont even mention that in the four line specification :o

frign14• 11 years ago

Hey krasin,

how come people assume there are only Little Endian machines. This mmap-technique wouldn't work on Big Endian like this, this is inaccetable!

However, you can still mmap and properly call ntohs() on each color channel value (if you access it). These functions won't hurt performance too much anyway, if at all. If you show me a measurable difference between using LE and BE, I owe you a beer, okay? :)

willvarfar• 11 years ago

I'm a bit flummuxed. Two things stick out. Firstly, PPM is widely used in these contexts. Its just not shouted about. Second, when PPM isn't used, its because its neither YCbCr nor YUV; I've found y2m an easy format. However, its not atypical to just use eat jpeg directly.

blt2• 11 years ago

I will try this format next time I write a simple image processing program. Piping with the converters is way nicer than linking against libpng. PPM is OK but this format is so dead simple I can commit it to memory. Big endian seems anachronistic though, why?

nsajko2• 11 years ago

Big endian ... ?

http://geekandpoke.typepad.com/geekandpoke/2011/09/simply-ex... :)

frign14• 11 years ago

Nowadays, most computers use Little Endian, however, that might change in the future. Also, there's no justification to write software only for one endianness due to speed(tm) or something. Learn to use the interfaces provided by the system (htons(),htonl(),ntohs(),ntohl(),...) and when you specify interchange formats, specify an endianness.

Which one it actually is doesn't matter, there's not too much magic happening in the background anyway. Those people claiming "Little Endian Master Race" might probably jump on the Big Endian bandwaggon as soon as it became the majority for some reason.

In fact though, writing endian independent code is the way to go.

blt2• 11 years ago

Of course, but right now almost every machine uses x86 or ARM and I want to write a throwaway image processing program. It just seems like a weird choice because the format is almost effortless to use otherwise. You gotta pick one endianness, why not pick the one that's on every machine right now?

cplease• 11 years ago

Won't be using this suckless format. Pretty useless. The real image formats took effort and are mature. This is just a more compact, less useful hacked out version of netpbm etc. Being easy to parse is no particular virtue. Use libraries with good APIs.

matthewbauer• 11 years ago

I've always thought of suckless.org tools as more of an educational tool than anything. Certainly some people use them in their day to day lives but for me it's always been like "What's the simplest way to do X?" It gets you thinking about the complexity of modern software and hopefully makes you question your assumptions. But yeah, pretty useless.

nsajko2• 11 years ago

Did you try dwm?

jerf• 11 years ago

"The real image formats took effort and are mature. This is just a more compact, less useful hacked out version of netpbm etc."

That seems less like "criticism" and more like "a summary of the blog post". (Sorry, I have to admit I'm developing a pet peeve around people echoing back things the original author already said but acting like it's a new criticism.)

stepvhen• 11 years ago

Use libaries with good APIs

That's the opposite of the suckless philosophy.

craigds4• 11 years ago

This seems likely to be unsuitable for large files (e.g. 50000x50000 pixels) because the external compression is going to make random access difficult. So extracting or displaying a small part of the image means you have to read from the beginning.

hderms• 11 years ago

this isn't my forte but couldn't you memory map the file and use arithmetic to find the chunks to read?

craigds4• 11 years ago

You need to use a compression format that has sync points. For example, if you need to seek to 1GB in the uncompressed file, the compression itself needs to have recorded where that corresponds to in the compressed file.

zlib apparently supports the `Z_FULL_FLUSH` sync option which you can use at compression time to provide sync points. (I haven't used it, and it doesn't seem to be exposed by GNU gzip.) Other compression formats might have something similar.

craigds4• 11 years ago

So it's a 16 bit RGBA bitmap with no support for custom headers, internal tiling, custom bands, band interleaving, or overviews. or compression. Simplicity is great and all, but all those features are actually really useful things to have...

frign14• 11 years ago

What do you need custom headers for? I think this problem is better solved with tagging file systems. BIP/BSQ Image Encoding can be done just well (you have (2^16)^3 colors), but you need to leave the interpretation to the outside. It is definitely not in scope of this format to handle that internally. Compression is external, so yeah, it definitely can be used.

All the things you presented are useful to have, but the question is: For which percentage of people is it useful to have? Is it solved by something else in a better way? You can never please the 1% without making everything harder for the 99%.

craigds4• 11 years ago

I'm probably in that 1% you mentioned. I work with large aerial photos (usually >10000x10000) with varying numbers of bands. Headers are excellent for georeferencing, storing band information, attribution etc.

tagging file systems

Like HFS+? I'm somewhat ignorant, not sure what other filesystems support this. What tools do? I have no idea if I rsync a file from my mac to a server, and back to a Windows box, if you'll still be able to see the metadata. This strikes me as a huge weakness compared to just supporting internal headers like every other image format.

Cyberdog• 11 years ago

As others in this thread have said, it's a format for image filtering, not storage. Headers and compression get in the way when all you really need is a matrix of pixels.

mistercow• 11 years ago

I think it's nice to have a simple format for storing images for the sake of being able to build a pipeline of filters that are very lightweight and simple to implement.

But I was really distracted by how the author kept going on borderline nonsensical tangents about compression. There's a reason we usually build compression into the file format, instead of just zipping a lossless bitmap. It turns out that there's a ton of stuff you can do to exploit redundancy in two dimensions - if you can apply a transformation before the compression stage.

And yeah, you can make up some of your losses by using bzip2. But again, there's a reason formats like PNG don't do that: it's slow.

hengheng• 11 years ago

Well, you can compare it to compressed RAW files, which are probably the closest we've come in terms of lossless compression. Then again, from a photography point of view, I do really like metadata, and I see no reason to omit them.

kgabis3• 11 years ago

Why not store metadata as a separate json files? This way you could have something like this:

  ff2jpeg --metadata image_metadata.json < image.ff > image.jpeg

frign14• 11 years ago

The bzip2 choice is not set in stone. The reason why PNG is built on top of deflate is because back then there was nothing better around for the computing power available. If you talk about speeds, the more or less only revelant measure is _decompression_ speed, and bzip2 is just fine for that. How long it takes to compress an image is relevant only once. Decompression is another story.

Additionally, in pipelines, you would only decompress your image once and compress it once. Usually, when people build pipelines based on individual tools passing png's to each other, these steps are repeated n times for n elements of the pipeline.

zaro• 11 years ago

As file format a better name would be suckmore.

May be as format for piping images makes some sense, but seems quite limiting.

Morst• 11 years ago

All beloved Trump:

280K trump.ff.bz2

516K trump.ff.gz

304K trump.ff.xz

360K trump.png

32K trump.jpg

Using a more complex langscape image:

175M coast-hdr.ff

42M coast-hdr.ff.bz2

83M coast-hdr.ff.gz

39M coast-hdr.ff.xz

6.5M coast-hdr.jpg

52M coast-hdr.png

Does not look that bad to me compared to PNG.

frign14• 11 years ago

I also noticed that in my tests, thus I stressed this point in the FAQ. If you try LZMA, you'll see that it sometimes is actually worse than bzip2, even though the latter is regarded to be quite aged compared to the former.

garethrees2• 11 years ago

The idea is very sensible. Using an image format that's trivial (and fast) to read and write makes it easy to build custom image-processing pipelines. The video game industry used to (and maybe still does) use Truevision TGA format, in uncompressed true-color mode, to meet this use case. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truevision_TGA

TGA currently has the advantage over Farbfeld that many image editors and viewers can already read it, which means you can look at the intermediate results in your pipeline without having to convert them to PNG or whatever first. But Farbfeld has the advantage of utter simplicity.

Avshalom3• 11 years ago

don't discount the utter simplicity that is not having to constantly explain to people and programs that this is a new image format.

garethrees2• 11 years ago

If you're using Farbfeld as an internal format for your custom image processing pipeline, which is the use case I was describing, then constant explanation isn't a problem.

Not every image format needs to be suitable for use as general-purpose distribution format.

Avshalom3• 11 years ago

Alternate plan: Use targa, which allows for equally simple files and is already supported by everything.

frign14• 11 years ago

Yeah right... http://www.codeproject.com/KB/graphics/TargaImage/TargaImage...

32bitkid• 11 years ago

Give Farbfeld 30 years to evolve in the wild and it'll probably look pretty similar.

Avshalom3• 11 years ago

That's an 18 byte header and then a list of pixel values. Everything else is optional and for the price of those 18 bytes you get an image format that you won't have to convert every time you want to look at it.

TheOtherHobbes• 11 years ago

The author has yet to see an example of an image which looked any different in the print depending on if it had been processed in a sRGB or Adobe RGB pipeline.

The author clearly has very limited experience of professional printing.

Images aren't just used by photographers. They're used by graphic designers, digital artists, and other people who need a consistent wide-gamut colour space.

sRGB is not that colour space.

Referring to a couple of ancient Ken Rockwell blog pages as "proof" is simply uninformed and amateurish.

frign14• 11 years ago

You can also use AdobeRGB with Farbfeld, but from my experience, those photographers shooting and printing in AdobeRGB with late CMYK export have Photoshop/PhotoRAW as their pipeline. If you fuck one thing up trying to handle AdobeRGB in farbfeld, everything is fucked up, but that happens anywhere.

On the other hand, most photographers shoot their stuff in sRGB (for a fact, because sRGB is by far the most widespread). I don't want to insult the professionals or something, I'm just acknowledging the fact that for the 1% using AdobeRGB there's no reason to complicate the format.

liquidmetal• 11 years ago

The fact that this file format doesn't enclose the AdobeRGB vs sRGB information is a deal breaker.

A lot of computer vision research datasets uses a similar file format - so I can see its use there. But things like movie creation, publishing, etc will probably never adopt this.

kelsolaar• 11 years ago

You can assume that most people are using sRGB colourspace for now, but it may not be true in the coming years, especially with UHD TV being officially specified and adopting Rec. 2020 colourspace: http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20160104006605/en/UHD-...

jheriko• 11 years ago

its always mystified me why there are not more standardised, simple things. when i load an image i want width, height and rgba in a buffer. complicated extras shouldn't be necessary to load an image.

this is why i use stb_image.c - even though it doesn't cover everything - it has a sane interface instead of a nightmare like libpng or libjpeg.

most image formats and the 'standard' libraries for using them look like a great reason to never employ anyone who had anything to do with them. this one looks like an engineer, competent at the most basic levels, did the most obvious thing.

good work.

given that most modern app formats do compression anyway i'm not sure there is any need to care about that. pngs don't shrink much inside an ipa or apk but raw data shrinks to about the same size as png in my experience.

etamponi• 11 years ago

Kudos to the author! I really like this format.

Most people in the comments clearly do not understand the words "easy" and "straightforward". I can only recommend them to go to the nearest dictionary and look at those words carefully.

Personally, a tool like this is what I always wanted to have during my Engineering Master and Machine Learning PhD. A clear, simple, straightforward & easy format so that I could process my images easily, simply, clearly and straightforwardly.

The only small complaint I can make is the use of BE that requires a manual transform to an "actual" integer.

zimpenfish2• 11 years ago

A clear, simple, straightforward & easy format so that I could process my images easily, simply, clearly and straightforwardly.

But what does this give you that the NetPBM tools and formats don't?

StefanKarpinski• 11 years ago

I've got a soft spot for simple, sane formats like this. One obvious but still simple generalization would be to allow n-dimensional image data by encoding the number of dimensions first, then the size of each dimension, then the data. That would allow representing video (very inefficiently), 3D static images (e.g. from MRI scans), and even 3D video (which is 4D).

Farbfeld – A suckless image format

Related Stories