365
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] ProdigalFrog@slrpnk.net 400 points 1 year ago

TL:DW, JPEG is getting old in the tooth, which prompted the creation of JPEG XL, which is a fairly future-proof new compression standard that can compress images to the same file size or smaller than regular JPEG while having massively higher quality.

However, JPEG XL support was removed from Google Chrome based browsers in favor of AVIF, a standalone image compression derived from the AV1 video compression codec that is decidedly not future-proof, having some hard-coded limitations, as well as missing some very nice to have features that JPEG XL offers such as progressive image loading and lower hardware requirements. The result of this is that JPEG XL adoption will be severely hamstrung by Google’s decision, which is ultimately pretty lame.

[-] Hellinabucket@lemmy.world 235 points 1 year ago

This is why Google keeps getting caught up in monopoly lawsuits.

[-] altima_neo@lemmy.zip 146 points 1 year ago

Modern Google is becoming the Microsoft of the 90s

[-] Telorand@reddthat.com 60 points 1 year ago

And they'll make eleventy bajillion dollars in the meantime, plenty of money to pay their inevitable punitive "fines."

[-] TeoTwawki@lemmy.world 28 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Hell old MSs penalty was giving free licenses in markets it never had a grip on, so its "lock 'em in!" model meant the "penalty" benefited them!

[-] FartsWithAnAccent@fedia.io 15 points 1 year ago

Which is funny and said because Microsoft is also the Microsoft of the 90s.

[-] nutsack@lemmy.world 14 points 1 year ago

Microsoft is still like this

[-] Ghostalmedia@lemmy.world 170 points 1 year ago

I tried JPEG XL and it didn’t even make my files extra large. It actually made them SMALLER.

False advertising.

[-] pastermil@sh.itjust.works 25 points 1 year ago

I think you took the wrong enlargement pill.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] reddig33@lemmy.world 74 points 1 year ago

Jpeg XL isn’t backwards compatible with existing JPEG renderers. If it was, it’d be a winner. We already have PNG and JPG and now we’ve got people using the annoying webP. Adding another format that requires new decoder support isn’t going to help.

[-] MimicJar@lemmy.world 62 points 1 year 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.

[-] ProdigalFrog@slrpnk.net 40 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year 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. 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).

[-] reddig33@lemmy.world 28 points 1 year 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.

[-] ProdigalFrog@slrpnk.net 18 points 1 year ago

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

Why is that a negative?

[-] reddig33@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago
[-] ProdigalFrog@slrpnk.net 15 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

The video actually references that comic at the end.

But I don't see how that applies in your example, since both JPEG and JPEG XL existing in parallel doesn't really have any downsides, it'd just be nice to have the newer option available. The thrust of the video is that Google is kneecapping JPEG XL in favor of their own format, which is not backwards compatible with JPEG in any capacity. So we're getting a brand new format either way, but a monopoly is forcing a worse format.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (8 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[-] FaceDeer@fedia.io 36 points 1 year 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.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] KairuByte@lemmy.dbzer0.com 19 points 1 year ago

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

load more comments (25 replies)
[-] Reverendender@sh.itjust.works 16 points 1 year ago

All the cool kids use .HEIF anyway

[-] Imgonnatrythis@sh.itjust.works 10 points 1 year ago

I use jpeg 2000

[-] cygnus@lemmy.ca 12 points 1 year ago

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

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] AnUnusualRelic@lemmy.world 10 points 1 year 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).

[-] southsamurai@sh.itjust.works 9 points 1 year 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?

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] dezmd@lemmy.world 14 points 1 year ago

Look it's all actually about re-encumberancing image file formats back into corporate controlled patented formats. If we would collectively just spend time and money and development resources expanding and improving PNG and gif formats that are no longer patent encumbered, we'd all live happily ever after.

load more comments (5 replies)
[-] fmstrat@lemmy.nowsci.com 7 points 1 year ago

Why was it not included? AVIF creator influence bias. It's a good story.

load more comments (7 replies)
[-] rustydomino@lemmy.world 221 points 1 year ago

Without jpeg compression artifacts how the hell are we supposed to know which memes are fresh and which memes are vintage???

[-] booly@sh.itjust.works 51 points 1 year ago

I still think it's bullshit that 20-year-old photos now look the same as 20-second-old photos. Young people out there with baby pictures that look like they were taken yesterday.

[-] Plopp@lemmy.world 55 points 1 year ago

We need a file format that degrades into black and white over time.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] RIPandTERROR@sh.itjust.works 33 points 1 year ago

AnD tHaTs A bAd ThInG

😒

[-] Magister@lemmy.world 32 points 1 year ago

Nobody remember JPEG2000 ?!?

[-] Ghostalmedia@lemmy.world 22 points 1 year ago
[-] Teal@lemm.ee 7 points 1 year ago

"In the year two thouuusaaaaaannd, in the year two thouuusaaaaaannd"

[-] seaQueue@lemmy.world 14 points 1 year ago

Jpeg2000 was patent encumbered. They waived the patents but that wasn't guaranteed going forward.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] hitwright@lemmy.world 19 points 1 year ago

Wasn't there a licensing issue with jpeg xl for using Microsoft's some sort of algo?

[-] Linkerbaan@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago

Makes sense why AV1F isn't supported in Windows. Likely a corrupt Microsoft backroom deal with proprietary algorithms makers.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[-] cupcakezealot 17 points 1 year ago

bring back bmp and tiff cowards

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] Plopp@lemmy.world 14 points 1 year ago

I'll just revert to .IFF

[-] IndustryStandard@lemmy.world 10 points 1 year ago

There were 14 competing standards.

There are now 13 competing standards.

And that's fine by me.

[-] credo@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago

WHY IS NO ONE STANDING UP FOR GIF?!

[-] erwan@lemmy.ml 58 points 1 year ago

I don't know, because it sucks and has zero benefits over PNG?

[-] hedgehog@ttrpg.network 9 points 1 year ago

Probably the least relevant benefit of APNG over GIF: Unlike GIF, I can even pronounce APNG with a soft G and not feel gross about it. (Like I’m betraying the peanut butter brand and my entire moral framework at the same time, y’know?)

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] pewgar_seemsimandroid 7 points 1 year ago

as a .png elitist i see this as a good thing.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 06 Aug 2024
365 points (100.0% liked)

Technology

77361 readers
2304 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 news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  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, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS