all 58 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 133 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (2 children)

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.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    [–] 129 points 11 months ago (8 children)

    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.

  • source
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 54 points 11 months ago (2 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] 38 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (5 children)
  • [–] 8 points 11 months ago (4 children)

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

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 11 months ago (3 children)

    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.

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

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

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
    [–] 89 points 11 months ago (3 children)

    "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

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

    I.e. the existing implementation is not usable because it's not written in rust

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 13 points 11 months ago
    [–] 23 points 11 months ago (4 children)

    The name of the format makes me think it's regular jpeg, but bigger. Wouldn't it be better to be smaller? 🤔

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 26 points 11 months ago

    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)

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 11 months ago*

    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)

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 7 points 11 months ago

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

  • source
  • [–] -3 points 11 months ago (3 children)

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

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [+] -16 points 11 months ago (2 children)

    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.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] -36 points 11 months ago (27 children)

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

  • source
  • hideshow 27 child comments
  • [–] 66 points 11 months ago (12 children)

    Feel free to use floppy disks. Btw if you are online, you use WebP and PNG all the time 🤣

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] 25 points 11 months ago (2 children)

    Sir, don't you dare encroach on those Lynx and W3M users. They don't need no stinking images!

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

    AVIF started heavily creeping in, too.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] -11 points 11 months ago (4 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 13 points 11 months ago (12 children)
  • [+] -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.

  • 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

  • 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.

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

    you can have uncompressed png too

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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/

  • 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.

  • source
  • parent