this post was submitted on 06 Aug 2024
1 points (100.0% liked)

Technology

58550 readers
4204 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] redisdead@lemmy.world 0 points 2 months ago (6 children)

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

[–] MonkderVierte@lemmy.ml 0 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

While AVIF saves about 2/3 in my manga downloads (usually jpg). 10 GB to 3 GB. Btw, most comicbook apps support avif.

[–] redisdead@lemmy.world 0 points 2 months ago (1 children)

10 whole GB of storage? I understand now why you need such an ultimate compression technology, this is an insurmountable amount of data in these harrowing times where you can buy a flash card the size of a fingernail that can hold that amount about 25 times.

[–] MonkderVierte@lemmy.ml 0 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

That was an example, is about a 100 chapter manga. Stop being a jerk.

[–] ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca 0 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

It’s competing with webp and it helps prevent jpg artifacts when downloaded multiple times

[–] redisdead@lemmy.world 0 points 2 months ago (2 children)

prevent jpg artifacts when downloaded multiple times

That's not how downloading works

[–] ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca 0 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

If you download and upload repeatedly you potentially lose some data each time which is how we got jpeg memes

[–] nutsack@lemmy.world 0 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

that happens when the sites you upload it to re-encode the image

[–] ayyy@sh.itjust.works 0 points 2 months ago

Slightly higher in this thread you spout off complaining about pedantry, and here you are, being even more pedantic?

[–] TheGrandNagus@lemmy.world 0 points 2 months ago (1 children)

What a dumb comment.

All of that adds up when you have thousands or tens of thousands of images. 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.

[–] redisdead@lemmy.world 0 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Shut up nerd, everyone has a computer in their pockets with enough processing power and ram to compute these media heavy websites you're talking about.

[–] TheGrandNagus@lemmy.world 0 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (2 children)

shut up nerd

He said, on Lemmy. On the Technology community. On a submission about image formats.

If nerdiness, or discussion about image formats or other tech bothers you, why are you even here?

Moving on from that...

There's storage improvements. There's server side considerations for storage, processing, and energy efficiency. There's poor mobile data connections to contend with.

There's better compression (I'm guessing you don't like artefacts all over images, or other oddities stemming from bad compression?)

There's still HDR support. There's still the support for animations. There's still support for transparency. There's still support for layers.

Imagine being upset about the prospect of their being a vastly better image standard. Are you that desperate to be contrarian? Are you that desperate for attention?

[–] lefaucet@slrpnk.net 0 points 2 months ago (1 children)

You are totally right AND He's making a valid point with his sarcastic joke of "shut up, nerd!"

"Nobody cares" means companies dont want to spend money to incorporate it if there's no demand from consumers.

Most consumers have no idea what a jpeg even is.

It won't be until Apple or someone brands it as an iPeg and claims you have a smol pp if your device doesn't have it that folks will notice.

Im reminded of telling folks about shoutcasts and nobody cared. Then apple comes out with podcasts and everyone was suddenly excited about 8 year old streaming tech

[–] FooBarrington@lemmy.world 0 points 2 months ago

Yet for some reason, browsers started supporting other formats like WebP, even though even fewer consumers wanted them. This makes complete sense when looking at it from the perspective "the companies try to save money and increase market share without caring about the consumer". How do you explain it from yours?

[–] redisdead@lemmy.world 0 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

He said, on Lemmy. On the Technology community. On a submission about image formats.

I know my audience.

I'm not upset there's a new better stronger faster harder standard, I'm just telling you why nobody cares about your jpeg2000 v2

[–] TheGrandNagus@lemmy.world 0 points 2 months ago

Whatever you say. After all, you must be right. You're a contrarian on the internet. You're not like the other girls.

[–] ayyy@sh.itjust.works 0 points 2 months ago

“I’m very small minded and am not important or smart enough to have ever worked on a large-scale project in my life, but I will assume my lack of experience has earned me a sense of authority” -Redisdead

[–] Takios@discuss.tchncs.de 0 points 2 months ago

That 0.18mb accumulates quickly on the server's side if you have 10000 people trying to access that image at the same time. And there are millions it not billions of images on the net. Just because we have the resources doesn't mean we should squander them..that's how you end up with chat apps taking multiple gigabytes of RAM.

[–] AdrianTheFrog@lemmy.world 0 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Check how large your photos library is on your computer. Now wouldn't it be nice if it was 40% smaller?

[–] redisdead@lemmy.world 0 points 2 months ago

I have several TBs of storage. I don't remember the last time I paid attention to it.

I don't even use jpeg for it. I have all the raw pics from my DSLR and lossless PNGs for stuff I edited.

It's quite literally a non issue. Storage is cheap af.