Thread 105773858

Now we got that out of the way, when will 4chang support it?

avif/jxl won.

>>105773858 (OP)
hopefully never, webp has negative aura

you will never be a real image codec

>>105773858 (OP)
webp will never be a real image format

>>105773858 (OP)
jpeg, png and gif are the holy trifecta
get your goyslop format away from me

>posts an image for ants
>on a thread about image file formats
Decent bait. Will manage a good 100+ replies.

>image quality comparison pic
>282x177px
>jpg

>>105773858 (OP)
>posts the comparsion pic as jpg instead of as png
are you retarded?

>>105773858 (OP)
JPEG XL > JPEG/PNG >>>> AVIF or WEBP or other Google shit with disappointing performance

>>105778759
>t. loves jew-xl cum

>click funny
>browser opens

>>105778880
t. telAVIF shill

>>105778880
>muh hecking animerinos are like 3 bytes smaller but i'm not gonna talk about
>shitty lossless compression (jxl is insanely efficient)
>slow ass encoding to reach reasonable efficiency
>"animated" avifs are just av1 videos and thus defeats the purpose of animated images, which is to be easy to decode in software
>no progressive decoding

>>105779154
AVIF is about 50% more efficient than JXL at compressing anime images/screenshots. Now to be fair that doesn't amount to much at 1080p let alone 720p but it does futureproof for 4K anime.

https://animecorner.me/crunchyroll-brings-demon-slayer-mugen-train-4k-re-release-to-north-america-and-more-from-may-14/

>>105779154
Also the whole bling aspect of AVIF is hardware acceleration and its infinite battery life hack that comes with it. I mean you think AVIF decoding is fast now, wait until it's decoded at 9001 MP/s on mobile phones.

>>105779282
>>105779236
nobody cares about anime shit or hardware acceleration. we want the best lossless codec, lossless JPG recompression, and progressive decoding for websites

>muh webp
>muh avif
>muh jxl
sorry, png won. it's been the de facto standard on the web for 20 years.
in fact, a new png3 spec was just released with HDR support and better compression. now how about you shut the fuck up about image formats?
jpeg is for photos, png is for everything else

>>105779373
Keep telling yourself that.

>>105779396
Does it have hardware acceleration yet?

>>105779396
Gif

>>105779396
you're probably right. and JPEG got the jpegli encoder (from JXL) so it's good enough for photos
JPEG+PNG forever

Already supported

>>105773858 (OP)
Why are the colours different? The jpeg looks more orange

>>105773858 (OP)
never, webp is godawful corporate slop

>>105780546
The webp sacrificed the dynamic range of colors so it appears washed out.

>uploads a jpg showing the difference between a jpg and a webp
its almost like the ads on TV showing you how much better the image a newer TV produces would be

>>105781253
and don't forget phone133Hz and monitor reviews showing how much nice 144Hz is while you watch on 60Hz and be like, ohhh yeah, this changes everything...

Why jxl can't be supported faster?

even with this joke of a comparison image, the jpeg has more color information than the webp

What's the difference between raw data, bmp and png?

>>105781387
Just convince 80% of humanity to buy an iphone pro max extreme deluxe, then nobody will complain about jpeg xl raping battery life. See >>105779282

>>105781387
(((Google))) doesnt want it

>>105773858 (OP)
codec debate bait
>284x177
bravo. 10/10

>>105781780
Watcha doing rabbi?

https://sneyers.info/

>>105779003
what kind of shitty image viewer do you use that doesnt allow you to view webp files?

>>105779236
I like James, but what does his post have to do with anything about this argument?

>>105773970
>>105774025
>>105780564
JPEG doesn't support transparency, GIF is mostly limited to 256 colors and PNG's compression is only good for certain types of images when at high resolutions. WebP, AVIF and JPEG XL don't have this problem.

>>105773858 (OP)
>284x177
what the fuck am I supposed to glean from an image of this resolution you dumb fuck

>>105781232
>Lossy

so it's a shit format

>>105783369
>and PNG's compression is only good for certain types of images when at high resolutions

Wrong, it's always lossless aside from shit like mipmaps nobody cares about

>>105784124
Any PNG image at 4K with a lot of grain is likely going to have a hefty file size.

>>105773858 (OP)
Doesn't WebP allow some tracking shit to be embedded in it?

>>105774036
Image for ants is a good phrase anon.

>>105783616
>>105775822
>>105774911
>>105774036
Here's an actually legit comparison and more importantly compares Webp against a modern JPG encoder, Jpegli, and not just the ultra-outdated libjpeg-turbo JPG encoder. The truth is libjpeg-turbo FUCKING SUCKS, there's no way around this. So when you compare Webp to that pile of dogshit you get 30, 40, and sometimes even 50% better compression efficiency. Jpegli obviously does much better and now Webp is only like 20% better. I hope anons in future threads use this image or make even better comparisons than me. Enough with the facebook-tier baiting for updoots shit you fags.

btw SSIM is very simple, scores above 0.90 indicate good quality and scores below indicate dogshit quality.

don't care. ignore all webp posts. delete all webp images after rightfully converting them to jpeg.

>>105784165
You can buy like 2tb hard drives for less then $50, who gives a shit about file size of pngs?

>>105784811
I don't like spinning rust, it's too noisy and incredibly dogshit slow.

>>105784592
>btw SSIM is very simple, scores above 0.90 indicate good quality and scores below indicate dogshit quality.
For me it's 0.999 SSIM. What if I decide to view my images under a microscope one day?

>>105784811
>who gives a shit about file size of pngs?

4chan's image uploader for one.

Memes are fine art and format is an artistic choice

>>105773858 (OP)
>It won
>Not supported by any browser
Truly the greatest victory

>>105785215
You're confusing jpeg xl with webp. The former still has only 14% browser support while the latter has 95% browser support.

https://caniuse.com/jpegxl
https://caniuse.com/webp

>when will 4chang support it
If there's anything the sharty event revealed, it's that there are no technical staff on the backend.

>>105785153
Yes but 4chan's limit is so low you need to compress everything as a jpg anyways unless it's low res or visually basic

>>105773858 (OP)
>forced chroma subsampling
image format discarded
jpeg doesn't have this problem

>>105785397
On hardware encoders it does. Most images that come from a camera are 4:2:0 JPEGs. Phone CPUs aren't actually powerful enough to encode a 50 megapixel JPG in 0.1 seconds.

Sadly this will probably carryover to AVIF as well.

>>105773858 (OP)
>wow I save 40 kB per image
>that means I can free more bandwidth and send literally GB as telemetry data and also updoot every app thrice a day

stare of computers in 2000+20+5

>>105773858 (OP)
>says while posting JPG

AAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
FAGGOT