HackerReposA FIELD GUIDE TO OPEN SOURCE
ProSponsor the shelf♧ 0
← Back to top all-time
FLIF-hub
FLIF
C++2015–2017
FLIF-hub / FLIF

FLIF

Free Lossless Image Format

Creative & MediaData & DatabasesLibraries & SDKs
Explore on GitHubRead Hacker News discussions
7Distinct people
9Mentions
0Explicit recommenders
3.8KGitHub stars
REPOSITORY AT A GLANCE

What to know before exploring

What it is

Free Lossless Image Format

GitHub

Where it is used

No documented product use has been verified yet.

What people are saying

No recommendation phrase was found in the indexed comments.

No classified warning is attached to this page. Read the discussions before treating silence as approval.

Also in these discussions

No other repository is repeatedly linked in the same discussions.

This week on Hacker News

Nov 7–Nov 14 UTC · Direct repository links and separately labeled related project stories. Indexed through 11/14/2026, 3:56:07 PM UTC.

No direct repository links were found in the indexed HN discussions over the past seven days. Older discussions are available below.

Mentions over time

HN mentions by month9 dated mentions

Observed mentions: 2015-10-02 12:57:36 UTC to 2017-06-23 08:31:53 UTC.

01232015-10-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2015-11-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 3 mentions; 0 submissions, 3 commentsOct 20152015-11-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2015-12-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2015-12-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2016-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2016-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2016-02-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 1 mentions; 0 submissions, 1 comments2016-02-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2016-03-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2016-03-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2016-04-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 1 mentions; 0 submissions, 1 comments2016-04-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2016-05-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2016-05-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2016-06-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2016-06-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2016-07-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2016-07-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2016-08-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2016-08-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2016-09-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 commentsAug 20162016-09-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2016-10-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2016-10-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2016-11-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 3 mentions; 0 submissions, 3 comments2016-11-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2016-12-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2016-12-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2017-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2017-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2017-02-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2017-02-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2017-03-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2017-03-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2017-04-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2017-04-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2017-05-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2017-05-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2017-06-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2017-06-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2017-07-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 1 mentions; 0 submissions, 1 commentsJun 2017

Counts come from the repository’s dated source evidence. Index cutoff: 2026-11-02 08:16:59 UTC.

View mention counts and date ranges
UTC ranges include their start and exclude their end. Select a period to filter the source evidence.
PeriodStart (UTC)End (exclusive, UTC)MentionsSubmissionsComments
Oct 20152015-10-01 00:00:00 UTC2015-11-01 00:00:00 UTC303
Nov 20152015-11-01 00:00:00 UTC2015-12-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Dec 20152015-12-01 00:00:00 UTC2016-01-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Jan 20162016-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2016-02-01 00:00:00 UTC101
Feb 20162016-02-01 00:00:00 UTC2016-03-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Mar 20162016-03-01 00:00:00 UTC2016-04-01 00:00:00 UTC101
Apr 20162016-04-01 00:00:00 UTC2016-05-01 00:00:00 UTC000
May 20162016-05-01 00:00:00 UTC2016-06-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Jun 20162016-06-01 00:00:00 UTC2016-07-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Jul 20162016-07-01 00:00:00 UTC2016-08-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Aug 20162016-08-01 00:00:00 UTC2016-09-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Sep 20162016-09-01 00:00:00 UTC2016-10-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Oct 20162016-10-01 00:00:00 UTC2016-11-01 00:00:00 UTC303
Nov 20162016-11-01 00:00:00 UTC2016-12-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Dec 20162016-12-01 00:00:00 UTC2017-01-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Jan 20172017-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2017-02-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Feb 20172017-02-01 00:00:00 UTC2017-03-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Mar 20172017-03-01 00:00:00 UTC2017-04-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Apr 20172017-04-01 00:00:00 UTC2017-05-01 00:00:00 UTC000
May 20172017-05-01 00:00:00 UTC2017-06-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Jun 20172017-06-01 00:00:00 UTC2017-07-01 00:00:00 UTC101

What Hacker News says

9 sources
jonsneyers·Jun 23, 2017
I also beg to differ. Images are pretty complicated. Just simple downscaling is obviously not that hard (unless you're like me and you worry about which colorspace you do it in, with which filter, what kind of performance for huge images, etc). But other things like lossy compression quality setting selection, automatic cropping for responsive art direction, etc etc: those things are not trivial at all. Don't get me wrong: I'm a big fan of FOSS, and I think it's great to have in-house image management solutions based on FOSS tools like ImageMagick, mod_pagespeed and thumbor. And if your website is relatively small and the image workflows are relatively simple, that might very well be the best solution. But I also think that for companies who just need some image management solution for their website or app, it can make a lot of sense to u
Read the rest
se an external service. It is simply a matter of dev effort and risk management. It makes more sense to have your devs focus on the core business. Building some simple in-house image management infrastructure is not that hard, but what when the next ImageTragick happens, or some new image format arrives, or browsers get new responsive image features which require more variants or server-side cleverness? Do you really want your devs to have to think about that stuff? Maybe, maybe not. If not, then moving it to an external cloud service does make sense. Disclaimer: I work at Cloudinary; I'm also the creator of FLIF (https://github.com/FLIF-hub/FLIF).
In Ask HN: Best Self-Hosted, Server-Side Image Optimization Tools?
jonsneyers·Jan 27, 2016
1) How does a GPL'ed reference implementation prevent digital cameras from using the format? 2) The reference implementation will most likely change to a more permissive license, cf https://github.com/FLIF-hub/FLIF/issues/192 3) If digital cameras would use FLIF, they would probably need to implement a simplified encoder in hardware, e.g. one that uses a hardcoded (set of) MANIAC tree(s) and only uses a subset of the available encoding options. Otherwise it will be too slow.
In Why BPG will replace GIFs and more

MAKE YOURSELF AT HOME

A few shortcuts

/
Search the collection
?
Open this guide
Esc
Close dialogs and navigation

Your saved repositories and interests stay in this browser.