It's the future – you can stop using JPEGs
1–10 of 61 posts
Re: It's the future – you can stop using JPEGs
#2Great advice but... really should have picked another picture. A night shot on a phone camera is going to be heavily postprocessed, it's grainy... just not the best demonstration of the tech
Re: It's the future – you can stop using JPEGs
#3An image codec comparison that doesn't include JPEG XL.
Re: It's the future – you can stop using JPEGs
#4That dark blurry photo can be compressed at 10% without any meaningful loss of quality.
Re: It's the future – you can stop using JPEGs
#5I think the article assumes that JPG 65, WebP 65 and AVIF 65 all produce same quality which is not necessarily true.
Re: It's the future – you can stop using JPEGs
#6An image codec comparison that doesn't include JPEG XL.
Yes it's a shame.
Jon Sneyers (main JPEG XL designer) :
"According to my benchmarks, JPEG XL also outperforms AVIF at quality settings very much suitable for the web, especially if you compare them at same-cpu-effort encoder settings. If you have data that says something else, could you please share it?"
Re: It's the future – you can stop using JPEGs
#7I encourage everyone to click the images and zoom in on them. The test itself is pretty flawed since the images probably all came from the jpeg in the first place (and if they didn't, then that's pretty damning to the non-jpeg options, in my opinion).
The place I found the most interesting is the dark, top of the screen. Zoomed to 240% and looking at the top area, especially where the power lines are going across, there's a very, very clear difference in quality between even the 95% jpeg and webp, and in my opinion, the jpeg wins for being more honest. That difference is more stark at the 65% compression option.
Is that difference worth the larger size? That's up for each of us to decide as we choose our technology; but, those images are very different from my perception.
Caveat: I've used Firefox to render them, which may have different results than Chrome, perhaps.
Re: It's the future – you can stop using JPEGs
#8I encourage everyone to click the images and zoom in on them. The test itself is pretty flawed since the images probably all came from the jpeg in the first place (and if they didn't, then that's pretty damning to the non-jpeg options, in my opinion). The place I found the most interesting is the dark, top of the screen. Zoomed to 240% and looking at the top area, especially where the power lines are going across, th…
And the blue shirt in the lower left corner. In webp-65% all the texture detail from the other versions is lost.
Re: It's the future – you can stop using JPEGs
#9I wish .net standard libraries would support anything else but they are frozen in time to the early 2000s (at least on .net framework full).
Re: It's the future – you can stop using JPEGs
#10I encourage everyone to click the images and zoom in on them. The test itself is pretty flawed since the images probably all came from the jpeg in the first place (and if they didn't, then that's pretty damning to the non-jpeg options, in my opinion). The place I found the most interesting is the dark, top of the screen. Zoomed to 240% and looking at the top area, especially where the power lines are going across, th…
Yeah, WebP was long criticized for its loop filter for example, which was a good fit for videos but not much for still images. In comparison, JPEG compression artifacts are so well understood that better encoders that minimize visual artifacts are available. I'm not even sure whether there is an original uncompressed image---that JPEG file might even directly come from a camera.