518
all 39 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] JoshsJunkDrawer@lemmy.ml 7 points 6 days ago

I just want a picture of a got-dang hot dog.

[-] jaykrown@lemmy.world 5 points 6 days ago

Everyone should just be using AV1 at this point. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AV1

[-] Starfighter@discuss.tchncs.de 20 points 6 days ago

I assume you mean AVIF? Because AV1 is not an image (file) format but a video compression format (that needs to be wrapped in container file formats to be storable).

[-] jaykrown@lemmy.world 12 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago)

"AVIF is an image file format that uses AV1 compression algorithms." yes i mean that

[-] Strawberry 2 points 6 days ago

please god no

[-] 6nk06@sh.itjust.works 129 points 1 week ago

Given these positive signals

Those idiots waited for 4 years because they followed the hype of the moment. I'm glad I removed Google from my life.

[-] panda_abyss@lemmy.ca 52 points 1 week ago

This must be your first time seeing what Google support looks like

This is pretty standard unless you can get an exec’s personal attention.

[-] ICastFist@programming.dev 1 points 2 days ago
[-] panda_abyss@lemmy.ca 1 points 2 days ago

Beyond this, even if you can get engineers to look at a bug ticket, this is how long it takes. It's months just to get a follow up.

[-] umbrella@lemmy.ml 37 points 1 week ago

something tells me they wanted their own formats to catch on.

[-] SkyeStarfall 8 points 6 days ago

Absolutely, google does that shit constantly, well known within the internet standards community

[-] ramjambamalam@lemmy.ca 6 points 6 days ago

That used to be what Microsoft (Internet Explorer) was famous for. I guess Chrome has lived long enough to be the villain, but Firefox is still the hero to me.

[-] GreyEyedGhost@lemmy.ca 4 points 6 days ago

Sorry to break it to you, but you might want to start looking at Firefox forks.

[-] ramjambamalam@lemmy.ca 1 points 6 days ago
[-] GreyEyedGhost@lemmy.ca 3 points 6 days ago

This article gives some information on why some have abandoned hope for Firefox and Mozilla. AI focus, changing its stance on selling user data, and the overall loss of focus. It's still better than most, IMO, but some of its forks better represent those who feel that way.

[-] ExLisper@lemmy.curiana.net 128 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Given these positive signals, we would welcome contributions

Poor Google doesn't have the manpower to implement it. They can only accept contributions from volunteers.

[-] bigfondue@lemmy.world 2 points 6 days ago

Don't worry, they can spare some 20 percent time

[-] ZoteTheMighty@lemmy.zip 40 points 1 week ago

Google is just a small indie company after all.

[-] eskuero@lemmy.fromshado.ws 87 points 1 week ago

"we would welcome contributions to integrate a performant and memory-safe JPEG XL decoder in Chromium. In order to enable it by default in Chromium we would need a commitment to long-term maintenance."

yeah

[-] dormedas@lemmy.dormedas.com 13 points 1 week ago
[-] reddig33@lemmy.world 12 points 1 week ago

I would be more excited about JPEG XL if it was backward compatible. Not looking forward to yet another image standard that requires OS and hardware upgrades simply so servers can save a few bytes.

[-] Laser@feddit.org 57 points 1 week ago

How would a new format be backwards-compatible? At least JPEG-XL can losslessly compress standard jpg for a bit of space savings, and servers can choose to deliver the decompressed jpg to clients that don't support JPEG-XL.

Also from Wikipedia:

Computationally efficient encoding and decoding without requiring specialized hardware: JPEG XL is about as fast to encode and decode as old JPEG using libjpeg-turbo

Being a JPEG superset, JXL provides efficient lossless recompression options for images in the traditional/legacy JPEG format that can represent JPEG data in a more space-efficient way (~20% size reduction due to the better entropy coder) and can easily be reversed, e.g. on the fly. Wrapped inside a JPEG XL file/stream, it can be combined with additional elements, e.g. an alpha channel.

[-] reddig33@lemmy.world 5 points 1 week ago

All you have to do is add a small traditional JPEG image at the start of the file. It doesn’t have to be high resolution or more than a couple of kb. The new format decoder would know this, and skip the traditional jpeg “header”, rendering the newer file format embedded in the image.

[-] LordKitsuna@lemmy.world 10 points 1 week ago

It requires neither of those upgrades though? Unless you're still using Windows XP I guess for some reason. It's just an update to the image decoder

I just use old JPEGs. Not JPEG2000, not PNG, not WebP, not JPEG XL.

[-] NotSteve_@piefed.ca 13 points 1 week ago

Because I'm tired of all this nonsense where just because a thing is a mature technology, it's considered obsolete. Stop constantly pushing for the next thing. Keep the things that work.

[-] cornshark@lemmy.world 49 points 1 week ago

"How dare they invent a more efficient image encoding! Back in my day we had bmp and we liked it!" - grandpa simpson

[-] tauonite@lemmy.world 15 points 1 week ago

So I tied an onion to my belt, which was the style at the time

I mean, BMP does still work as an uncompressed, artifact-free format.

[-] BunScientist@lemmy.zip 15 points 1 week ago

you can have uncompressed png too

[-] 01189998819991197253@infosec.pub 11 points 1 week ago

Sure. But you use bmp when you want to nuke your drive space for no real reason.

[-] Fifrok@discuss.tchncs.de 19 points 1 week ago

It's unreasonable to stop further software development just because there's a 'mature' solution around. Besides, just because a solution is 'mature' doesn't make it good.

And considering that it seems like you can still use the original, about 30 year old format, doesn't look like there's any harm for the folks not needing or able to use the new stuff.

[-] SaraTonin@lemmy.world 17 points 1 week ago

Webp is a smaller file size than jpeg for the same image quality in almost all circumstances - so it’s more efficient and quicker to load. It also supports lossless compression, transparency, and animation, none of which jpeg do. And the jpeg gets noticable visual artefacts at a much higher quality than webp does.

People didn’t adopt it to annoy you. It’s started to replace jpeg for the same reason jpeg started to replace bmp - it’s a better, more efficient format.

[-] Aequitas@feddit.org 5 points 1 week ago

It is controlled by google tho

[-] The_Decryptor@aussie.zone 4 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Webp is a smaller file size than jpeg for the same image quality in almost all circumstances

For lower quality images sure, for high quality ones JPEG will beat it (WebP, being an old video format, only supports a quarter of the colour resolution than JPEG does, etc.) JPEG is actually so good that it still comes out ahead in a bunch of benchmarks, it's just it's now starting to show it's age technology wise (like WebP, it's limited to 8bpc in most cases)

It also doesn't hurt that Google ranked sites using WebP/AVIF higher than ones that aren't (via lighthouse).

Edit: I should clarify, this is the lossy mode. The lossless mode gives better compression than PNG, but is still limited to 8bpc, so can't store high bit depth, or HDR images, like PNG can.

Edit 2: s/bpp/bpc/

[-] eager_eagle@lemmy.world 10 points 1 week ago

you know, using a better encoding is better for your dial-up internet too

[-] shishka_b0b@lemmy.zip 6 points 1 week ago

Oh yeah? Well I named my firstborn child JPEG!

this post was submitted on 26 Nov 2025
518 points (100.0% liked)

Programmer Humor

27624 readers
1217 users here now

Welcome to Programmer Humor!

This is a place where you can post jokes, memes, humor, etc. related to programming!

For sharing awful code theres also Programming Horror.

Rules

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS