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

Technology

72425 readers
2359 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
L3s@lemmy.world
enu@lemmy.world
technopagan@lemmy.world
L4s@lemmy.world
L3s@hackingne.ws
L4s@hackingne.ws
1
JPEG is Dying - And that's a bad thing | 2kliksphilip (www.youtube.com)
submitted 11 months ago by ProdigalFrog@slrpnk.net to c/technology@lemmy.world
15 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] cyd@lemmy.world 0 points 11 months ago (2 children)

People are quick to blame Google for the slow uptake of Jpeg XL, but I don't think that can be the whole story. Lots of other vendors, including non-commercial free software projects, have also been slow to support it. Gimp for example still only supports it via a plugin.

But if it's not just a matter of Google being assholes, what's the actual issue with Jpeg XL uptake? No clue, does anyone know?

[–] Skeletonek@lemmy.zip 1 points 11 months ago

GIMP supports JPEG XL natively in 3.0 development versions. If I remember correctly GIMP 2.10 was released before JPEG-XL was ready, so I think that's the reason. They could have added support in smaller update though, which was the case with AVIF.

[–] redisdead@lemmy.world 0 points 11 months ago (1 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

[–] TheGrandNagus@lemmy.world 1 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

What a dumb comment.

All of that adds up when you have thousands or tens of thousands of images. Or even when you're just loading a very media-heavy website.

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.