511
JPEG XL is Dead. Long Live JPEG XL (programming.dev)
submitted 11 months ago by to c/programmer_humor@programming.dev
58 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/g/blink-dev/c/WjCKcBw219k/m/NmOyvMCCBAAJ?pli=1

UPDATE: https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src/+/3f500995689490b24355bddb6efdcf76a90ccfb8

google: when poeple keep using jpeg-xl and you need to umplement support
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 13 points 11 months ago (12 children)

Why though

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
    •
  • [+] -27 points 11 months ago (11 children)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
    •
  • [–] 50 points 11 months ago (5 children)

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

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] -3 points 11 months ago (3 children)

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

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 15 points 11 months ago (2 children)

    you can have uncompressed png too

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 19 points 11 months 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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 17 points 11 months ago (1 child)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 6 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months 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/

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -1 points 11 months ago

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent