Comment on JPEG is Dying - And that's a bad thing | 2kliksphilip

• MimicJar@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  “the annoying webp” AFAIK is the same problem as JPEG XL, apps just didn’t implement it.

  It is supported in browsers, which is good, but not in third party apps. AVIF or whatever is going to have the same problem.

  source
• ProdigalFrog@slrpnk.net ⁨3⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  Jpeg XL isn’t backwards compatible with existing JPEG renderers. If it was, it’d be a winner.

  According to the video, and this article, JPEG XL is backwards compatible with JPEG.

  But I’m not sure if that’s all that necessary. JPEG XL was designed to be a full, long term replacement to JPEG. Old JPEG’s compression is very lossy, while JPEG XL, with the same amount of computational power, speed, and size, outclasses it entirely. and PNG is lossless, and thus is not comparable since the file size is so much larger.

  JPEG XL, at least from what I’m seeing, does appear to be the best full replacement for JPEG (and it’s not like they can’t co-exist).

  source

  • reddig33@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    It’s only backwards compatible in that it can re-encode existing jpeg content into the newer format without any image loss. Existing browsers and apps can’t render jpegXL without adding a new decoder.

    source

    • ProdigalFrog@slrpnk.net ⁨3⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      Existing browsers and apps can’t render jpegXL without adding a new decoder.

      Why is that a negative?

      source

      • reddig33@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

        xkcd.com/927/

        source

        • -> View More Comments
      • seaQueue@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

        Legacy client support. Old devices running old browser code can’t support a new format without software updates, and that’s not always possible. Decoding jxl on a 15yo device that’s not upgradable isn’t good UX. Sure, you probably can work around that with slow JavaScript decoding for many but it’ll be slow and processor intensive.

        source

        • -> View More Comments
      • Morphit@feddit.uk ⁨3⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

        xkcd.com/927/

        Adding more decoders means more overheads in code size, projects dependencies, maintanance, developer bandwidth and higher potential for security vulnerabilities.

        source

        • -> View More Comments
    • JackbyDev@programming.dev ⁨3⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      They’re confusing backwards and forwards compatible. The new file format is backwards compatible but the old renderers are not forward compatible with the new format.

      source
  • AdrianTheFrog@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    JPEG XL in lossless mode actually gives around 50% smaller file sizes than PNG

    source

    • ProdigalFrog@slrpnk.net ⁨3⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      Oh damn, even better than the estimates I found.

      source
• FaceDeer@fedia.io ⁨3⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  My understanding is that webp isn't actually all that bad from a technical perspective, it was just annoying because it started getting used widely on the web before all the various tools caught up and implemented support for it.

  source

  • AnUnusualRelic@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    It’s certainly not bad. It’s just not quite as good.

    source
• ArchRecord@lemm.ee ⁨3⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  I just wish more software would support webp files. I remember Reddit converting every image to webp to save on space and bandwidth (smart, imo) but not allowing you to directly upload webp files in posts because it wasn’t a supported file format.

  If webp was just more standardized, I’d love to use it more. It would certainly save me a ton of storage space.

  source
• KairuByte@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨3⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  So… your solution is to stick with extremely dated and objectively bad file formats? You using Windows 95?

  source

  • NateNate60@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    What’s wrong with PNG?

    source

    • KairuByte@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨3⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      For what it is? Nothing.

      Compared to something like JPEG XL? It is hands down worse in virtually all metrics.

      source

      • NateNate60@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

        I think this might sound like a weird thing to say, but technical superiority isn’t enough to make a convincing argument for adoption. There are plenty of things that are undeniably superior but yet the case for adoption is weak, mostly because (but not solely because) it would be difficult to adopt.

        As an example, the French Republican Calendar (and the reformed calendar with 13 months) are both evidently superior to the Gregorian Calendar in terms of regularity but there is no case to argue for their adoption when the Gregorian calendar works well enough.

        Another example—metric time. Also proposed as part of the metric system around the same time as it was just gaining ground, 100 seconds in a minute and 100 minutes in an hour definitely makes more sense than 60, but it would be ridiculous to say that we should devote resources into switching to it.

        Final example—arithmetic in a dozenal (base-twelve) system is undeniably better than in decimal, but it would definitely not be worth the hassle to switch.

        For similar reasons, I don’t find the case for JPEG XL compelling. Yes, it’s better in every metric, but when the difference comes down to a measly one or two megabytes compared to PNG and WEBP, most people really just don’t care enough. That isn’t to say that I think it’s worthless, and I do think there are valid use cases, but I doubt it will unseat PNG on the Internet.

        source

        • -> View More Comments
      • TheRealKuni@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

        Compared to something like JPEG XL? It is hands down worse in virtually all metrics.

        Only thing I can think of is that PNG is inherently lossless. Whereas JPEG XL can be lossless or lossy.

        source

        • -> View More Comments
      • LifeInMultipleChoice@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

        So what your saying is that I should save everything as a BMP every time. Why compress images when I can be the anchor that holds us in place.

        source
      • JackbyDev@programming.dev ⁨3⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

        Honest question, does JPEG XL support lossless compression? If so, then it’s probably objectively better than PNG. My understanding with JPEG is that there was no way to actually have lossless compression, it always compressed the image at least a little.

        source

        • -> View More Comments
      • hedgehog@ttrpg.network ⁨3⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

        Compared to something like JPEG XL? [PNG] is hands down worse in virtually all metrics.

        Until we circle back to “Jpeg XL isn’t backwards compatible with existing JPEG renderers. If it was, it’d be a winner.”

        APNG, as an example, is backwards compatible with PNG.

        If JPEG-XL rendered a tiny fallback JPEG (think quality 0 or even more compression) in browsers that don’t support JPEG-XL, then sites could use it without having to include a fallback option themselves.

        source

        • -> View More Comments
  • AnUnusualRelic@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    That’s why all my files are in TGA.

    source
• cygnus@lemmy.ca ⁨3⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  Forgive my ignorance, but isn’t this like complaining that a PlayStation 2 can’t play PS5 games?

  source

  • tabular@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    It’s a different culture between PCs can consoles. Consoles are standardized computers - they all have the same* hardware’ Game developers can be confident in what functionality their games have access to, and so use the best they can.

    PCs in comparison are wildly different from user to user due to being modular: you can pick from many parts to create a computer. As such, devs tend to focus on what most PC’s can do and make them optionally better if the PC has access to supporting hardware (e.g. RTX ray-tracing cores).

    Besides, video games are drastically complex in comparison to static images 😛

    source
• Reverendender@sh.itjust.works ⁨3⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  All the cool kids use .HEIF anyway

  source

  • Imgonnatrythis@sh.itjust.works ⁨3⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    I use jpeg 2000

    source
• AnUnusualRelic@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  You can’t add new and better stuff while staying compatible with the old stuff. Especially not when your goal is compact files (or you’d just embed the old format).

  source
• southsamurai@sh.itjust.works ⁨3⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  Isn’t that the same as other newer formats though?

  There’s always something new, and if the new thing is better, adding/switching to it is the better move.

  Or am I missing something about the other formats like webp?

  source

  • reddig33@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    You have to offer something compelling for everyone. Just coming out with yet another new standard™ isn’t enough. As pointed out earlier, we already have:

    • jpeg
    • Png
    • Webp
    • HEIC

    What’s the point of adding another encoder/decoder to the table when PNG and JPEG are still “good enough”?

    source

    • pennomi@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      PNG and JPEG aren’t good enough, to be honest. If you run a content heavy site, you can see something like a 30-70% decrease in bandwidth usage by using WebP.

      source
    • Peffse@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      Image

      source