555
I know nothing about computers but this does not add up
(reddthat.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 26 Aug 2025
555 points (100.0% liked)
memes
17022 readers
2812 users here now
Community rules
1. Be civil
No trolling, bigotry or other insulting / annoying behaviour
2. No politics
This is non-politics community. For political memes please go to !politicalmemes@lemmy.world
3. No recent reposts
Check for reposts when posting a meme, you can only repost after 1 month
4. No bots
No bots without the express approval of the mods or the admins
5. No Spam/Ads/AI Slop
No advertisements or spam. This is an instance rule and the only way to live. We also consider AI slop to be spam in this community and is subject to removal.
A collection of some classic Lemmy memes for your enjoyment
Sister communities
- !tenforward@lemmy.world : Star Trek memes, chat and shitposts
- !lemmyshitpost@lemmy.world : Lemmy Shitposts, anything and everything goes.
- !linuxmemes@lemmy.world : Linux themed memes
- !comicstrips@lemmy.world : for those who love comic stories.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
avif is better than it in almost all ways, and jpex xl is even better than that (but not about gifs i think)
webp is essentially a webm file (which is mkv with codec restrictions(vp8/9 and ogg vorbis or opus))
avif is av1 encoded files in a webp like container (but not webm afaik)
jpeg xl is a format made specifically for images
No SVG?
Do the traditional JPG vs PNG usage "rules" apply to AVIF and JPEG XL?
IMO AVIF works really well at making convincing looking results at really high compression ratios, it's worse at pretty much everything else.
And occasionally the 'convincing looking' results aren't actually very accurate to the original image...
But those results really do look very convincing.
And IMO one of the most compelling features of JPEG-XL is its' great lossless compression, although it is generally good all-around. AVIF is pretty terrible at lossless compression, usually well-behind WebP and only a bit better than PNG.
Anyways, for photos, if you want to compress them a ton then maybe AVIF is best, but if you want high quality JXL is probably best.
I think https://cloudinary.com/blog/jpeg-xl-and-the-pareto-front is a good comparison
what would they be?
do you mean in sense of lossy or lossless? if so, in theory both webp and avif could have lossless photos, but i do not think they are designed for that (think in terms of their backrounds, they are kinda like a single frame videos. and usually you only have lossy video).
jpeg xl in theory aims to take job of both jpeg and png (it can handle lossy as well as lossless). In theory, we (as in all of computing and media people) decide to back on jpegxl, we could potentially just have 1 format, and accordingly 1 library which provides support. but that is just a dream i do not see happening. google essentially paralysed jpeg xl by removing it from chromium , and that is the largest userbase.
almost all other big companies want to use jpeg xl. meta, adobe, intel and others. the main benefit to them is reduced bandwidth cost (for exactly same data, jpeg xl can be ~20% smaller than jpeg), and jpeg can be losslessly translated to jxl, and even for backwards compatibility, reverse can be done on client end. but without chrome, no web developer will adopt. if web people do not, the demand for format would be extremely small, no hardware manufacturer will include hardware support (your gpus have "special" stuff for almot all codecs and formats, but that is not the case for jxl for now), so jxl operations currently are slow, so end user might not even be motivated to use (other than space savings).
https://jpegxl.info/
This is more or less everything I know about how image formats work.
okay. it is a lot simplified, but mostly correct. ideally image format for drawn out stuff and other flat animated stuff is svg (vector graphics - ie - infinitely scalable yet crisp), but png is usually used because it is defacto lossless standrad. lossless here roughly translates to - sensor produced a matrix of colors - lossless photo preserves all data. lossy discards some data. For irl stuff, usually lossless is overkill for end user, hence you see jpegs (defacto lossy standrad)
jxl can so both. others can do that as well. jpegs can be lossless, but that is usually not the standard we use. you can store lossy data in pngs, but the loss is not created by png. jxl behaves by default like lossless (like png), but due to newer algorithms, size when lossless is closer to jpeg. if you prepare loss jxl - it can be close to half size of jpegs.
there are other benifits to jxl (extreme future proofing (extremely high bit depth, and pixel size limit, large amount of channels), progressive decoding, etc.), but our reality has to suck because of google.
I locally use jxl to store family photos, but this means i can not send them, because they are using stuff which does not support jxl, so have to convert and share.