this post was submitted on 06 Aug 2024

340 points (92.3% liked)

Technology

59377 readers

3189 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

Follow the lemmy.world rules.
Only tech related content.
Be excellent to each another!
Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
Politics threads may be removed.
No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

340

JPEG is Dying - And that's a bad thing | 2kliksphilip (www.youtube.com)

submitted 3 months ago by ProdigalFrog@slrpnk.net to c/technology@lemmy.world

156 comments fedilink hide all child comments

top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] ProdigalFrog@slrpnk.net 406 points 3 months ago (13 children)

TL:DW, JPEG is getting old in the tooth, which prompted the creation of JPEG XL, which is a fairly future-proof new compression standard that can compress images to the same file size or smaller than regular JPEG while having massively higher quality.

However, JPEG XL support was removed from Google Chrome based browsers in favor of AVIF, a standalone image compression derived from the AV1 video compression codec that is decidedly not future-proof, having some hard-coded limitations, as well as missing some very nice to have features that JPEG XL offers such as progressive image loading and lower hardware requirements. The result of this is that JPEG XL adoption will be severely hamstrung by Google’s decision, which is ultimately pretty lame.

[–] Hellinabucket@lemmy.world 238 points 3 months ago (1 children)

This is why Google keeps getting caught up in monopoly lawsuits.

[–] altima_neo@lemmy.zip 148 points 3 months ago (3 children)

Modern Google is becoming the Microsoft of the 90s

[–] Telorand@reddthat.com 59 points 3 months ago (1 children)

And they'll make eleventy bajillion dollars in the meantime, plenty of money to pay their inevitable punitive "fines."

[–] TeoTwawki@lemmy.world 28 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

Hell old MSs penalty was giving free licenses in markets it never had a grip on, so its "lock 'em in!" model meant the "penalty" benefited them!

[–] FartsWithAnAccent@fedia.io 14 points 3 months ago

Which is funny and said because Microsoft is also the Microsoft of the 90s.

[–] nutsack@lemmy.world 13 points 3 months ago

Microsoft is still like this

[–] Ghostalmedia@lemmy.world 172 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I tried JPEG XL and it didn’t even make my files extra large. It actually made them SMALLER.

False advertising.

[–] pastermil@sh.itjust.works 25 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I think you took the wrong enlargement pill.

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] reddig33@lemmy.world 69 points 3 months ago (12 children)

Jpeg XL isn’t backwards compatible with existing JPEG renderers. If it was, it’d be a winner. We already have PNG and JPG and now we’ve got people using the annoying webP. Adding another format that requires new decoder support isn’t going to help.

[–] MimicJar@lemmy.world 63 points 3 months ago

"the annoying webp" AFAIK is the same problem as JPEG XL, apps just didn't implement it.

It is supported in browsers, which is good, but not in third party apps. AVIF or whatever is going to have the same problem.

[–] ProdigalFrog@slrpnk.net 42 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (3 children)

Jpeg XL isn’t backwards compatible with existing JPEG renderers. If it was, it’d be a winner.

According to the video, and this article, JPEG XL is backwards compatible with JPEG.

But I'm not sure if that's all that necessary. JPEG XL was designed to be a full, long term replacement to JPEG. Old JPEG's compression is very lossy, while JPEG XL, with the same amount of computational power, speed, and size, outclasses it entirely. PNG is lossless, and thus is not comparable since the file size is so much larger.

JPEG XL, at least from what I'm seeing, does appear to be the best full replacement for JPEG (and it's not like they can't co-exist).

[–] reddig33@lemmy.world 27 points 3 months ago (2 children)

It’s only backwards compatible in that it can re-encode existing jpeg content into the newer format without any image loss. Existing browsers and apps can’t render jpegXL without adding a new decoder.

[–] ProdigalFrog@slrpnk.net 16 points 3 months ago (15 children)

Existing browsers and apps can’t render jpegXL without adding a new decoder.

Why is that a negative?

load more comments (15 replies)

load more comments (1 replies)

load more comments (2 replies)

[–] FaceDeer@fedia.io 36 points 3 months ago (1 children)

My understanding is that webp isn't actually all that bad from a technical perspective, it was just annoying because it started getting used widely on the web before all the various tools caught up and implemented support for it.

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] ArchRecord@lemm.ee 21 points 3 months ago

I just wish more software would support webp files. I remember Reddit converting every image to webp to save on space and bandwidth (smart, imo) but not allowing you to directly upload webp files in posts because it wasn't a supported file format.

If webp was just more standardized, I'd love to use it more. It would certainly save me a ton of storage space.

[–] KairuByte@lemmy.dbzer0.com 17 points 3 months ago (25 children)

So… your solution is to stick with extremely dated and objectively bad file formats? You using Windows 95?

load more comments (25 replies)

[–] cygnus@lemmy.ca 14 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Forgive my ignorance, but isn't this like complaining that a PlayStation 2 can't play PS5 games?

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] Reverendender@sh.itjust.works 11 points 3 months ago (1 children)

All the cool kids use .HEIF anyway

load more comments (1 replies)

load more comments (5 replies)

[–] dezmd@lemmy.world 13 points 3 months ago (5 children)

Look it's all actually about re-encumberancing image file formats back into corporate controlled patented formats. If we would collectively just spend time and money and development resources expanding and improving PNG and gif formats that are no longer patent encumbered, we'd all live happily ever after.

load more comments (5 replies)

load more comments (9 replies)

[–] rustydomino@lemmy.world 228 points 3 months ago (2 children)

Without jpeg compression artifacts how the hell are we supposed to know which memes are fresh and which memes are vintage???

[–] booly@sh.itjust.works 52 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I still think it's bullshit that 20-year-old photos now look the same as 20-second-old photos. Young people out there with baby pictures that look like they were taken yesterday.

[–] Plopp@lemmy.world 56 points 3 months ago (6 children)

We need a file format that degrades into black and white over time.

load more comments (6 replies)

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] simple@lemm.ee 71 points 3 months ago

Pretty much sums it up. JPEGXL could've been the standard by now if Google would stop kneecapping it in favor of its own tech, now we're stuck in an awkward position where neither of them are getting as much traction because nobody can decide on which to focus on.

Also, while Safari does support AVIF, there are some features it doesn't support like moving images, so we have to wait on that too... AVIF isn't bad, but it doesn't matter if it takes another 5+ years to get global support for a new image format...

[–] cyd@lemmy.world 49 points 3 months ago (24 children)

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.zip 38 points 3 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.

[–] tal@lemmy.today 29 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

Lots of other vendors, including non-commercial free software projects, have also been slow to support it.

checks

It doesn't look like the Lemmy Web UI supports JPEG XL uploads, for one.

[–] ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca 12 points 3 months ago

Imgur doesn’t let me upload it either, I have to use general file hosts

load more comments (22 replies)

[–] Magister@lemmy.world 32 points 3 months ago (4 children)

Nobody remember JPEG2000 ?!?

[–] Ghostalmedia@lemmy.world 22 points 3 months ago (1 children)

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] seaQueue@lemmy.world 15 points 3 months ago

Jpeg2000 was patent encumbered. They waived the patents but that wasn't guaranteed going forward.

load more comments (2 replies)

[–] RIPandTERROR@sh.itjust.works 27 points 3 months ago

AnD tHaTs A bAd ThInG

😒

[–] hitwright@lemmy.world 19 points 3 months ago (5 children)

Wasn't there a licensing issue with jpeg xl for using Microsoft's some sort of algo?

load more comments (5 replies)

[–] cupcakezealot@lemmy.blahaj.zone 16 points 3 months ago (4 children)

bring back bmp and tiff cowards

load more comments (4 replies)

[–] Plopp@lemmy.world 14 points 3 months ago

I'll just revert to .IFF

[–] gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works 11 points 3 months ago

do I look like I know what a jay peg is?

load more comments