Would be interesting to know if there's any increase in CPU battery (power) consumption to render these different formats too?
It's the future – you can stop using JPEGs
11–20 of 61 posts
Re: It's the future – you can stop using JPEGs
#12It would be nice if the author would add mozjpeg[1] to the comparison. At certain image resolutions, it can produce smaller file sizes than WebP, and because it is still a jpeg, it has a much better compatibility story, which the author alluded to.
Re: It's the future – you can stop using JPEGs
#13An image codec comparison that doesn't include JPEG XL.
https://caniuse.com/avif - 87% penetration. JpegXL have about zero (actually 5% - safari). So, in practice, you can't use it
Re: It's the future – you can stop using JPEGs
#14The non-browser support of WebP is just bad.
I hate website using WebP, because, when I save them, I have a hard time editing them.
Re: It's the future – you can stop using JPEGs
#15Would be interesting to see how all those jpegs fared if run though ECT (https://github.com/fhanau/Efficient-Compression-Tool). I’ve found it can save a surprising amount of space sometimes.
Re: It's the future – you can stop using JPEGs
#16I 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…
> Zoomed to 240% and looking at the top area
This isn't what any lossy formats are designed for.
How much do the lossy spots stick out when viewed in a cursory glance without zooming from a normal viewing distance? This is what lossy formats are designed for.
Re: It's the future – you can stop using JPEGs
#17Re: It's the future – you can stop using JPEGs
#18An image codec comparison that doesn't include JPEG XL.
JPEG XL still has too poor browser support to be taken seriously although I hope Safari's move in the most recent version will apply more pressure on Google.
Re: It's the future – you can stop using JPEGs
#19I wish .net standard libraries would support anything else but they are frozen in time to the early 2000s (at least on .net framework full).
I doubt Microsoft would give such a project the passion it deserves in terms of optimization and support of new and future formats. I think this is better left for a third party like ImageSharp, Magick.NET, or libvips with the .NET bindings.
Re: It's the future – you can stop using JPEGs
#20I 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…
> Zoomed to 240% and looking at the top area This isn't what any lossy formats are designed for. How much do the lossy spots stick out when viewed in a cursory glance without zooming from a normal viewing distance? This is what lossy formats are designed for.
If that's indeed true, there is no point to compress an image that is larger than a target viewport---any larger image can be scaled down on encoding and upscaled on decoding. But all formats mentioned easily support much larger images.