Talk:Free Lossless Image Format

Relevance
So why is this article not on PROposed Deletion? "BPG does not support 16-bit" is very near to intentionally misleading (it can do 14-bit), and allegedly more than 8192, but less than 10000, IIRC from reading a color FAQ mentioned in the PNG-book, is the upper limit for humans. If FLIF tries to be better for, say, cats, the article should say so. It should also offer links to relevant test images, minimally Lena, the Mozjpeg suite, and Parkjoy frame 200, for a verification with the shiny new XnView FLIF-plugin published a week ago. –2A03:2267:0:0:70BD:65FE:F432:FCAA (talk) 15:59, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Dubious
"any partial download of an image file can be used as a lossy encoding of the entire image" There must be some minimum limit to cover the whole image - you are not going to be able to recreate an entire lossy image with half a dozen bytes.
 * There indeed appears to be such a limit. While the interlacing algorithm allows to first pass to contain of just a single pixel, the header-like structure of the file must be downloaded in its entirety before that can happen. And this appears to grow quite large with larger images. 46.230.137.40 (talk) 12:33, 21 February 2021 (UTC)