Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

It's the future – you can stop using JPEGs

daniel.do

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 61 posts

Re: It's the future – you can stop using JPEGs

#51

Post by janfoeh »

bitsandboots wrote: post #46
janfoeh wrote: post #37

> In fairness, it wasn’t practical to use even with a fallback until around 2015 and only became usable without a fallback in the last 2-3 (ish?) years. And because of that school of thought, about 20% of all sites I visit are currently broken for me. I'm still on macOS Catalina, which is the last somewhat bearable version of macOS, but which has no webp support in Safari. Even pages which pretend to specify JPG fall…

That sounds self-imposed. Why are you using safari when it's version is locked to your outdated OS? Current Firefox works on catalina.

Because apart from being noticeably heavier on resources than Safari, Firefox has become rather paternalistic (the "ask me again later" school of thought), pushy, annoying in the frequency of its UX changes, a lot less trustworthy and generally unpleasant to use.

I simply have neither the time nor the inclination to hunt for and remediate annoyances and unfeatures every other month when another major release drops. And I'm saying that as someone who used it for a great many years, ever since ... 0.somethingorother.

I have it installed for testing when I'm doing frontend, but that is about it.

Re: It's the future – you can stop using JPEGs

#52

Post by joecot »

politelemon wrote: post #22

From what I can tell, the author is focusing a bit too much on numbers, but is unsure why these alternatives haven't gained widespread adoption. The comparison photo isn't great. Even my pedestrian eyes are able to tell that the Webp and Avi conversions result in poorer photos (most glaring example is the tree in the background), so immediately I'd not want my photos created, converted, or displayed in that format. B…

There are also plenty of websites that either won't accept webp images or don't handle them very well. For example Facebook will not accept webp on mobile, on desktop most of the time it thinks it's a gif. While jpeg works everywhere

Re: It's the future – you can stop using JPEGs

#53

Post by stvltvs »

crote wrote: post #35
j16sdiz wrote: post #14

The 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.

Seconding this. It feels like every other day I download an image, realize it's WebP and start bashing my head against the desk because it means opening it in GIMP to convert it to JPEG once again . I've got several hundreds of GB of unused SSD storage, and I'm downloading it over a 1Gbps connection. Honestly, I really could not care less about those 150KB I'm saving.

The people paying for the server's bandwidth care.

Re: It's the future – you can stop using JPEGs

#54

Post by 303uru »

t-writescode wrote: post #7

I 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…

Why? Isn't this the entire point. 99.99999% of vistors to my website never click on a photo and zoom to 240%. Why serve all that extra data so that once in a lifetime pixel peeping weirdo doesn't get upset? If you're running a photography portfolio or something akin to it, then sure, serve big images. But for most of the web there's no reason to.

Re: It's the future – you can stop using JPEGs

#55

Post by jareklupinski »

303uru wrote: post #54
t-writescode wrote: post #7

I 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…

Why? Isn't this the entire point. 99.99999% of vistors to my website never click on a photo and zoom to 240%. Why serve all that extra data so that once in a lifetime pixel peeping weirdo doesn't get upset? If you're running a photography portfolio or something akin to it, then sure, serve big images. But for most of the web there's no reason to.

> 99.99999% of vistors to my website never click on a photo and zoom to 240%. Why serve all that extra data so that once in a lifetime pixel peeping weirdo doesn't get upset?

because, statistically, at some point every one of us will be the 0.00001% in someone else's problem... wouldn't you rather that they tried a little harder for you too? ;)

Re: It's the future – you can stop using JPEGs

#56

Post by froh »

politelemon wrote: post #22

From what I can tell, the author is focusing a bit too much on numbers, but is unsure why these alternatives haven't gained widespread adoption. The comparison photo isn't great. Even my pedestrian eyes are able to tell that the Webp and Avi conversions result in poorer photos (most glaring example is the tree in the background), so immediately I'd not want my photos created, converted, or displayed in that format. B…

> If a thing is good enough, it will hang around for a very long time because there's no compelling reason to move away from it.

thanks for this gem

I'd add to "good enough" a viable ecosystem.

perl lived on for quite a surprising while despite the parrot disaster and python and ruby competition.

and while rust has amazing momentum, c++ and c have a plethora of existing production quality libraries.

Re: It's the future – you can stop using JPEGs

#57

Post by 303uru »

jareklupinski wrote: post #55
303uru wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why? Isn't this the entire point. 99.99999% of vistors to my website never click on a photo and zoom to 240%. Why serve all that extra data so that once in a lifetime pixel peeping weirdo doesn't get upset? If you're running a photography portfolio or something akin to it, then sure, serve big images. But for most of the web there's no reason to.

> 99.99999% of vistors to my website never click on a photo and zoom to 240%. Why serve all that extra data so that once in a lifetime pixel peeping weirdo doesn't get upset? because, statistically, at some point every one of us will be the 0.00001% in someone else's problem... wouldn't you rather that they tried a little harder for you too? ;)

Honestly, no. It's a waste of energy, bandwidth and storage space.

Re: It's the future – you can stop using JPEGs

#58

Post by jareklupinski »

303uru wrote: post #57
jareklupinski wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 99.99999% of vistors to my website never click on a photo and zoom to 240%. Why serve all that extra data so that once in a lifetime pixel peeping weirdo doesn't get upset? because, statistically, at some point every one of us will be the 0.00001% in someone else's problem... wouldn't you rather that they tried a little harder for you too? ;)

Honestly, no. It's a waste of energy, bandwidth and storage space.

> It's a waste of energy, bandwidth and storage space.

yet for some reason, we keep on going shrug

Re: It's the future – you can stop using JPEGs

#59

Post by mikewarot »

Years ago when I was tight on disk space I converted my photos all to jpeg2000 to save space. I've regretted it ever since, as I've permanently lost resolution of my personal photos of friends and family, and some turn out to be completely lost.

For web pages, you can just turn up the jpeg compression on photos, and use pngs for constructed images with hard edges.

Post reply on HN