JPEG is Dying - And that's a bad thing
www.youtube.com
JPEG XL faces fierce competition from AVIF. And Google. A bit of bothUpdate about JPEG XL support and why it's a mixed bag: https://x.com/nixcraft/status/183...
  • cyd@lemmy.worldEnglish
    0·
    11 months ago

    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.zipEnglish
      1·
      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.worldEnglish
      0·
      11 months ago

      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.worldEnglish
        1·
        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.