Thread 105658338

why does no one use or support the superior image format

>>105658338 (OP)
PNG already exists.

>>105658338 (OP)
I am no one, I do indeed use it

>>105658338 (OP)
My camera does...

>>105658338 (OP)
Apparently this is a extremely controversial thing to bring up but Jpeg XL, AFAIK to date, does not have hardware acceleration. AVIF on the other hand does but truthfully it's not doing to good either because the "hardware acceleration" costs $10,000 in the form of an FPGA. Jpeg XL does seem better suited for photography but no hardware acceleration is like a death sentence for this thing.

I do hope this changes soon DOE.

>>105658491
SS2 posted it again

>>105658491
is there one of these for risc-v?

>>105658496
Call me what you will but the truth hurts, I get it man. I mean once you no longer require a $10,000 FPGA, AVIF is pretty much the winner by default. It doesn't matter if Jpeg XL can beat AVIF by 20% in some edge cases, everyone will look at hardware acceleration converting about 1488 4K AVIF images per minute and choose that instead.

>>105658513
No idea, it seems to be an x16 pci-express accelerator graphics card thingie.

>>105658491
>>105658526
AVIF is just a fucking single AV1 frame. Any SoC that can handle AV1 hwdec/enc can handle it. Retard.
It's also still just an even more computationally expensive bandage on WebP that somehow manages to do worse than HEIC in practical use. JPEG-XL can transparently recompress EVERY JPEG IN EXISTENCE.
Fuck.

To be fair we're fine with jpg and png, storage and traffic is cheap, compute is much less cheap. Only gif is a problem but most just use h264 and pretend it's a gif.

>>105658491
Doesn't really matter, it's a picture, not a video. Any client can cpu decode no problem.
What does matter though is if it's so SLOW to encode that you need a dedicated server to encode (accelerated or not)

>>105658569
Source: my ass. Now to be fair AVIF images encoded with hardware acceleration will never achieve the compression efficiency gains of picrel, now that's a valid critique.

>>105658590
None of these things natively support BT.2020. Also I wouldn't say that it's "slow" because if a 2200G can encode a 4K res AVIF image in 10-20 seconds I imagine more modern CPUs would take a few seconds at most. BUTT from the perspective of a website anything less than about 1488 4K res images per minute is pretty fucking slow.

The PR damage from encoding Anime images alone is probably the main reason why jxl failed to be honest.

>>105658338 (OP)
>>105658491
>>105658672
>>105658650
PNG is just better

>>105658526
Meh, I'd rather let the script run while I do other shit than lose any quality from my collection

>>105658684
Were you dropped as a baby on hard concrete or an anvil?

>>105658672
Screenshots of low bitrate anime are such a fucking non-issue. Maybe it always feels strange arguing JXL here because I have photographs...

Bandwidth is cheap. This isn't 2002. Use of shit like webp is done by corporate controlled websites to shave pennies off their bills. They don't care about what's better. They just care about saving money. Everyone else is not bothered about images the size of 1-2 floppy disks.

>>105658740
Look again retard. JXL has twice the file size but still looks like diarrhea. AVIF is like 90% more efficient than JXL when it comes to images with large sections of flat colors.

It's not really that surprising desu, most of the devs working on AV1 are rabid weebs.

As am I so JXL gets thrown into the vaporware pile for me desu.

>>105658760
>Bandwidth is cheap.
No, it isn't. What website will let me share by TBs of movies/TV shows with hundreds of friends family for free without me having to host anything myself?


retard

i convert all the megahueg doujins etc i download to jxl and have been for some time now, when the web finally starts to support it i will be ready

>>105658786
2 more weeks!

>>105658773
You're moving away from images to videos. Not really the same thing. There are some places you can get a 10gbit connection in your house so the problem is solved in some places. Well as long as your friends and family are living somewhat close to you geographically and don't have shit peering to your ISP. I live in the Philippines and have 800mbit internet at home. I also have a gbit server in The Netherlands with 14TB of storage and a bandwidth cap of 100TB per month. Thankfully I don't need to stream to hundreds of people. I just set up Jellyfin for my mom back in the US to watch her shows. Maybe I'll set one up at home for people I know here in the Philippines in the future when I can afford more hard drives.

>>105658811
I said WITHOUT ME HAVING TO HOST ANYTHING MYSELF.

Anyway think scales, moving TBs of video to just a few hundred people is hella expensive, that's obvious. However so is moving MBs of picture data to say millions of people.

>>105658845
Moving those MBs is a lot more manageable. There are also a lot more free options. I can put a 3MB picture on imgur and millions of people can view it. At the same time dealing with, ahem, pirated movies, is totally doable. I said bandwidth is cheap, not free. I also never implied TBs of storage is free either. You get what you pay for bro. If you want to be like me and have your own infrastructure set up for these kinds of things you need to invest in it. Look up what the word cheap means. I implied the prices to do such a thing are totally reasonable. If you disagree perhaps it's time you started looking for a job.

>>105658338 (OP)
Anyone who isn't Google does.
In fact, you get to be greeted by a JXL the moment you log into a Linux desktop.
https://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/gnome-backgrounds/-/tree/main/backgrounds?ref_type=heads

>>105658884
Even though >>105658491 is true? I mean JXL would win in quality to that but not in speed.

>>105658884
Based GNOME for once

>>105658884
>gnome
wtf i hate jxl now

>>105658884
Based ebussy, made me hate him a little less.

>>105658936
Only if they can leverage the same infrastructure that video encoding uses.
Image encoding is nothing compared to videos. You may find the occasional 2048x2048 picture on Xitter, but you'll never get a full-res camera shot on slop media. This significantly reduces the effectiveness of highly parallelized encoders.

>>105659148
No because then quality would be really shit then. I mean the whole appeal of dropping $10,000 on an ebin fpga like this is so you get fast encode speed but better quality that what standard AV1 video encoding is capable of.

IMHO a dedicated chip specializing in AVIF images seems a better solution than hijacking the video AV1 chip to also encode images.

>>105659162
The video processing used by big data centers is also expensive bespoke hardware that delivers way above what you'll find on "standard AV1 video encoding".
If you're to design a specialized static image encoding chip, you might as well just make it for JXL. Hardware acceleration of JXL is only a problem for decoders since they have to support the entire spec unconditionally, and it's way too complex for that.

>>105659278
For video processing outside of shit like YouTube, Facebook, etc where they need to handle user submitted content on an insane scale it makes more sense to encode with x264 or x265 once and get the best possible quality/efficiency. While that requires using a CPU rather than faster GPU encoding it gets the best result. Encode once serve millions of times. My job requires me to deal with streaming live content which is more of a pain in the ass.

>>105659303
>it makes more sense to encode with x264 or x265
Or, you know, SVT, the encoder explicitly created for that use case you presented.

>>105659366
Not quite. Hardware adoption is still low. Also I don't think AV1 is quite "there" yet when it comes to replicating the quality of a good encode with the other codecs. Maybe it could be in the future. But I'm really fucking skeptical and think it's safer to assume what's actually going to be pursued is "better" quality at lower bitrates without replicating the quality of good codecs at what today is considered a reasonable bitrate.

>>105658684
>>105658353
Not the same purpose.

>>105659451
>Hardware adoption is still low
Hardware is useless if there isn't software to drive it, but the opposite is not true. Good luck serving an x265 encode millions of times. Meanwhile, AV1 is guaranteed to be supported on Android 14. I.e. every security supported Android version except for 13.

>>105659510
I checked and my phone doesn't support hardware accelerated AV1 decoding. The only device I own that does is my laptop. Anyway I can remember the nascent days of H264. When scene x264 encodes from TV were the only HD content on the internet. When the first chance I got to actually view such material required me to install a cracked copy of CoreAVC in order for the shitty CPU I had to actually be able to handle it. I don't feel nearly as excited about AV1. It's not like H264 replacing the horribly inefficient but also objectively worse blocky mpeg 2 garbage. It's more like trying to replace mp3 with opus.

>>105658338 (OP)
Because AVIF is vastly superior and already supported and used by everyone and their grandma. What do we need yet another image format for?

>>105658569
>recompress EVERY JPEG IN EXISTENCE
Ah yes recompressing lossy slop is exactly what the world needs

>>105658764
>Look again retard.
Nigger nobody fucking cares.

>>105659754
Do you know how JPEG-XL works? Recompressing JPEG is lossless. If you compress some JPEG to JPEGXL, and then decompress the JPEGXL, you get the original fucking file. It's the god damn point.
>Ah yes recompressing lossy slop is exactly what the world needs
EVERY. FUCKING. WEBP. AND AVIF. IN EXISTENCE. OUTSIDE OF THE FAGGOT SHILL IN THESE THREADS. Is a lossy image recompressed to FUCK.

>>105658353
png is shit. You can achieve better compression ratio and faster (de)compression by just compressing the bytes of your image with zstd.

>>105659796
WEBP and AVIF have a lossless mode faggot. We don't need to recompress lossy slop so it's 5% smaller

>>105660195
Nobody outside of these shill threads is using AVIF/WebP in lossless mode. 99% of either in the wild are on the fly CDN recompressed versions of lossy images.

>>105658338 (OP)
I use webp for every website I build

>>105660209
>nooo we need lossy slop
>NOOOOO NOT LIKE THIS
>YOU HAVE TO USE MY FORMAT
no thanks I will just keep using AVIF

>>105660247
And I will keep blocking you at the header level. Interframe video codecs have no place as image codecs.

>>105660252
then have fun with the webp fallback faggot

>>105660260
>>105660252
>Interframe video codecs have no place as image codecs.
If you're serving AVIF/WebP exclusively your site is useless to me.

>>105660267
OK but who cares? You are one peasant in a pool of billions

imagine not using the superior BMP image format
compression is a meme

>>105658338 (OP)
Google would rather you use webpiss

>>105660321
Anon...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BMP_file_format#Compression

>>105660617
>Note that images in all color depths can be stored without compression if so desired.

>>105658338 (OP)
Because there is already Webp and AVIF, which are newer, have more features.

>>105660684
>webp
>more features

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WebP
>As such, it is a block-based transformation scheme with eight bits of color depth and a luminance–chrominance model with chroma subsampling by a ratio of 1:2 (YCbCr 4:2:0).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JPEG
>The ratios at which the downsampling is ordinarily done for JPEG images are 4:4:4 (no downsampling), 4:2:2 (reduction by a factor of 2 in the horizontal direction), or (most commonly) 4:2:0 (reduction by a factor of 2 in both the horizontal and vertical directions).

>>105660704
You're right.
I was also thinking about HEVC/H.265

>>105660734
JXL is literally the best image standard there is. Why isn't everyone using it?
>INB4 Hurr durr it's slow
AV1 is also slow without hardware accelerators, we could put all that money for hardware accelerators into JXL instead of AVIF.

>>105661415
see >>105658672

It's not the best at everything. The truth is AVIF and JXL specialize in different things but keeping both would be bloat.

>>105658338 (OP)
JPEG2000 was superior too, and nobody supported it except the movie industry.

>>105660195
...do you not understand that converting a jpeg to lossless webp or lossless avif is going to increase filesize by like 90%? it literally defeats the fucking point
jxl saving 5-20% losslessly is much more useful than that

>>105660247
so why are you using avif for lossless compression when it's barely any better than png and way worse than webp at that?

>>105661725
>>105661734
hi daiz

>>105661767
why would I be daiz when he is opposed to jxl and shilling avif? are you fucking retarded
daiz is here: >>105658491
wake the fuck up retard

>>105661782
>why would I be daiz when he is opposed to jxl and shilling avif?

>>105661804
>march 2024
yeah you are bit behind there buddy

>>105661816
shut up daiz your blatant jewxl shilling is obvious

>>105661782
>>105661804
OR maybe controversially daiz supports both but if you all came to understand this then you wouldn't have your pointless shit flinging threads.

>>105661838
>avif which was created and backed by the world's biggest megacorporations is more jewish than jxl which is a royalty free open standard
I will never understand this, do you retards even have a working brain

>>105661842
>"jxl is dead because of lack of hardware acceleration"
>"supports both"
pick one

>>105661859
Look at the creator. I'm not daiz but at the very least I feel uncomfortable supporting anything Jewish because sadly I have a heart and don't like seeing palestinian children getting bombed.

I know I know, I'm basically hitler for saying that but whatever.

>>105661859
All 3 formats are made by Google retard

>>105661925
If you trust anyone that looks like that you're actually socially retarded.