I would say that’s not comparable. One process (screenshotting or taking a photo as PNG) results in a PNG as the output. The other process results in an image of the same format as the output. I guess at best you could make a philosophical argument as to what is ontologically a PNG: is it something that ends in .png, or is it a file that follows the PNG format? I think most people would say the latter, so if we say the definition of something is just a description of how it’s used, then the former process results in a PNG and the latter process does not.
Also, how is screenshotting an “entirely new image” in a way that e.g. putting it into GIMP and exporting to PNG isn’t? That’s doing the same thing. You know there isn’t some “canonical” JPEG to PNG algorithm, right?
That’s not on the chart because it doesn’t convert it. It only renames it. A JPEG ending with .png is still a JPEG
That’s what the mimetype cult wants you to believe.
One could argue that they have converted it, but it was done poorly.
In a similar sense, the screenshots and phone photos are not conversions. They are entirely new images.
I would say that’s not comparable. One process (screenshotting or taking a photo as PNG) results in a PNG as the output. The other process results in an image of the same format as the output. I guess at best you could make a philosophical argument as to what is ontologically a PNG: is it something that ends in
.png, or is it a file that follows the PNG format? I think most people would say the latter, so if we say the definition of something is just a description of how it’s used, then the former process results in a PNG and the latter process does not.Also, how is screenshotting an “entirely new image” in a way that e.g. putting it into GIMP and exporting to PNG isn’t? That’s doing the same thing. You know there isn’t some “canonical” JPEG to PNG algorithm, right?