Technology

72425 readers

2374 users here now

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

Our Rules

Follow the lemmy.world rules.
Only tech related news or articles.
Be excellent to each other!
Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
Politics threads may be removed.
No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
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.
Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

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

[–] 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.