ProdigalFrog@slrpnk.net to Technology@lemmy.worldEnglish · 11 months agoJPEG is Dying - And that's a bad thing | 2kliksphilipwww.youtube.comexternal-linkmessage-square17linkfedilinkarrow-up11arrow-down10
arrow-up11arrow-down1external-linkJPEG is Dying - And that's a bad thing | 2kliksphilipwww.youtube.comProdigalFrog@slrpnk.net to Technology@lemmy.worldEnglish · 11 months agomessage-square17linkfedilink
minus-squareredisdead@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up0·11 months agoThe issue with jpegxl is that in reality jpeg is fine for 99% of images on the internet. If you need lossless, you can have PNG. “But JPEGXL can save 0,18mb in compression!” Shut up nerd everyone has broadband it doesn’t matter
minus-squareTheGrandNagus@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1·edit-211 months agoWhat a dumb comment. All of that adds up when you have thousands or tens of thousands of images. Or even when you’re just loading a very media-heavy website. The compression used by JPEG-XL is very, very good. As is the decoding/encoding performance, both in single core and in multi-core applications. It’s royalty free. Supports animation. Supports transparency. Supports layers. Supports HDR. Supports a bit depth of 32 compared to, what, 8? JPEG-XL is what we should be striving for.
The issue with jpegxl is that in reality jpeg is fine for 99% of images on the internet.
If you need lossless, you can have PNG.
“But JPEGXL can save 0,18mb in compression!” Shut up nerd everyone has broadband it doesn’t matter
What a dumb comment.
All of that adds up when you have thousands or tens of thousands of images. Or even when you’re just loading a very media-heavy website.
The compression used by JPEG-XL is very, very good. As is the decoding/encoding performance, both in single core and in multi-core applications.
It’s royalty free. Supports animation. Supports transparency. Supports layers. Supports HDR. Supports a bit depth of 32 compared to, what, 8?
JPEG-XL is what we should be striving for.