I just use old JPEGs. Not JPEG2000, not PNG, not WebP, not JPEG XL.
Feel free to use floppy disks. Btw if you are online, you use WebP and PNG all the time 🤣
No, I have WebP blocked in my about:config. And I use Pale Moon, which actually blocks the things unlike modern FF. And I don’t load PNG either.
lmao
Do you also hit yourself in the nuts every morning to show the world how tough you are?
I find this interesting there an advantage to the older formats or is this just for compatibility with custom photo editing tools?
Compatibility is an advantage.
AVIF started heavily creeping in, too.
I’ve yet to see any AVIF in the wild. I think support for it is not quite there yet, everybody is still relying on WEBP.
I’ve seen a lot of avifs masquerading as jpegs lol (I know because KDE Dolphin for some reason isn’t showing a preview for those until I rename them)
Sir, don’t you dare encroach on those Lynx and W3M users. They don’t need no stinking images!
Lynx is the best browser.
I prefer offpunk.
Not if they use wget to only download the HTML!
Why though
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.
these damn kids will wake up on day and go, “why do you need xpg? jpgxl is just fine!”
they don’t realize it yet that the only reason why jpeg xl exists is to silently slip that corpo collar around their necks.
🤷 only time can feed wisdom and cure stupid.
you know, using a better encoding is better for your dial-up internet too
“How dare they invent a more efficient image encoding! Back in my day we had bmp and we liked it!” - grandpa simpson
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.
you can have uncompressed png too
Sure. But you use bmp when you want to nuke your drive space for no real reason.
Wdym? This guy is still using punch cards
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.
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/
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.
Oh yeah? Well I named my firstborn child JPEG!
Finally.
Everyone should just be using AV1 at this point. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AV1
please god no
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).
“AVIF is an image file format that uses AV1 compression algorithms.” yes i mean that
deleted by creator
I just want a picture of a got-dang hot dog.
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.
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.
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.
deleted by creator
Absolutely, google does that shit constantly, well known within the internet standards community
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.
Sorry to break it to you, but you might want to start looking at Firefox forks.
Why?
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.
“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
I.e. the existing implementation is not usable because it’s not written in rust
Or would they demand it in Go? Or have they abandoned that?
That might work but didn’t think go was
- as safe as rust
- built for CPU intensive operations (aside from potentially concurrent tasks)
The name of the format makes me think it’s regular jpeg, but bigger. Wouldn’t it be better to be smaller? 🤔
No. They increased the max “canvas” size and increased encoding efficiency. You’d want the file size to be smaller but the file itself to be larger (and consequently more detailed)
It’s even more confusing than that; the
Xis for revision 10, and theLis for long term.It’s an update to the JPEG standard intended to cover expected future uses and capabilities.
“10 LTS”?
In my personal tests of jxl, it manages filesizes 1/9th that of png while remaining visually identical (unless looking VERY closely). It’s a massive improvement over jpeg and honestly a replacement for png in most cases.
Like I’m saying 8MB for a 8000x6000 file at max quality (estimating from memory)
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.
What does backward compability in image format even means? Being able to open it in windows image viewer?
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
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.
Don’t worry, they can spare some 20 percent time
Google is just a small indie company after all.
