just use PNG. JPEG sucks.
JPEG absolutely destroys PNG in areas of performance and size when it comes to typical use cases.
Lossy compression is not a bad thing. We need to get over this.
Fighting JPEG color banding
11–20 of 53 posts
Re: Fighting JPEG color banding
#12just use PNG. JPEG sucks.
Please these kind of comments are entirely counter productive and don't add anything to the conversation. No matter the topic, presume some people are truly interested in the topic and feel free to stay off it.
There is a space for JPEG and for PNG. Here is a good base reference https://www.a2hosting.com/blog/pngs-vs-jpegs/
Re: Fighting JPEG color banding
#13just use PNG. JPEG sucks.
or JPEG XL
Well, yeah, unless you want to use it in a browser: https://caniuse.com/jpegxl
Re: Fighting JPEG color banding
#14There's also webp and heif and png and svg, and I believe all the existing formats already solve the image compression problem. The difference of 18kb vs 22kb from hours of microoptimisations is frankly irrelevant given the rate of networks getting faster.
Re: Fighting JPEG color banding
#15just use PNG. JPEG sucks.
For a screenshot? Yeah JPEG sucks. For a diagram with large blocks of uniform color and sharp edges? Yeah JPEG sucks.
But for pictures, JPEG is in its comfort zone and it's amazing it is still doing comparatively well after the IT equivalent of 150 years. Only now worthy alternatives are starting to emerge (looking at you JPEG XL), not for lack of trying (looking at you WEBP). It's incredible it managed to stay relevant for so long, and while surely patents, sunken cost fallacies, hardware implementations and inertia played a part, none of this would have mattered if it hadn't been pretty good to start with.
Re: Fighting JPEG color banding
#16There's also webp and heif and png and svg, and I believe all the existing formats already solve the image compression problem. The difference of 18kb vs 22kb from hours of microoptimisations is frankly irrelevant given the rate of networks getting faster.
Not even that but the chosen reference of the same file size (Q15+Fix vs QL18) is hardly distinguishable to me.
In essence, the author discovered how to make JPEG images look better by increasing their file size.
Re: Fighting JPEG color banding
#17I remember that almost 20 years ago, I played with a utility that allowed manual JPEG optimization by painting regions with desired quality settings. I think it was included on a CD bundled with "Magazyn internetowy WWW" [1]. Does anyone remember such program?
[1] https://sprzedajemy.pl/www-magazyn-internetowy-2003-nr-04-03... - incidentally this must be the very issue, see the teaser about image optimization
Re: Fighting JPEG color banding
#18I ran into this problem exporting images from Dark Table. The solution I ended up going with was simply exporting as png instead of jpg.
Re: Fighting JPEG color banding
#19There's also webp and heif and png and svg, and I believe all the existing formats already solve the image compression problem. The difference of 18kb vs 22kb from hours of microoptimisations is frankly irrelevant given the rate of networks getting faster.
Don't tell that to NFT people who want to put everything on-chain but have to sell their house in gas fees to store a small jpg on Ethereum!
It's like the 70s all over again, but with blockchain instead of floppy disks.
(I've seen a few of them discuss better compression algorithms because they really felt it was extremely useful and meaningful to store the actual data on-chain and not a IPFS link like they usually do)
Re: Fighting JPEG color banding
#20just use PNG. JPEG sucks.
For a screenshot? Yeah JPEG sucks. For a diagram with large blocks of uniform color and sharp edges? Yeah JPEG sucks. But for pictures, JPEG is in its comfort zone and it's amazing it is still doing comparatively well after the IT equivalent of 150 years. Only now worthy alternatives are starting to emerge (looking at you JPEG XL), not for lack of trying (looking at you WEBP). It's incredible it managed to stay relev…
> none of this would have mattered if it hadn't been pretty good to start with.
Considering that MPEG (and competitors) have evolved due to its deficiencies (the current baseline today is H.264 and not the original version H.261 or even its immediate successor MPEG-1), I'm surprised that JPEG is just showing its deficiencies today and not in 2000. Actually, it's a complement that although multiple file formats were invented to handle lossy pictures but even WebP can't beat JPEG all the time (especially that WebP can only save up to 16k pixels per side while JPEG can handle up to 64k pixels).