Thread 107039189

I thought /g/ said webp was bad for photos? Why do I get blocky artefacts out the ass when I try to create a JPG with similar filesize as the webp?

Here's the original camera image straight from my phone btw.

/g/ isn't one person, retard

>>107039189 (OP)
Some viewers (slash) decoders can do interpolation at block boundaries to smooth those artifacts. https://github.com/google/knusperli

>>107039248
I don't care, I was told that there was no point in using webp for photos. Clearly there is if it gets rid of these nasty blocky artefacts without the need for special snowflake image viewers.

>>107039189 (OP)
Both look like shit.
JPEG-XL would be the best choice.

>>107039294
>20 seconds to encode
It does look somewhat better but sorry I'll pass. Maybe when I upgrade from my T480. That said webp does have it's awful downsides like picrel.

extreme jpeg artifacts are comfy and recognizably jpeg
webp artifacts are grainy, alien, and AI-esque. barf

>>107039345
ever tried this, anon? or do you prefer the old fashion way

>>107039548
It's worse on mobile. I personally use squoosh and download the JPG from there. I don't get why Webp uploads aren't allowed yet. Like yeah there was a catastrophic vulnerability where someone could hack servers with a maliciously crafted Webp.

BUTT that's been patched for years I think.

>>107039548
>PNGs and JPGs get converted to webp on upload
>Converted back from webp on download
Two generations of lossy conversions are not great for quality.

It's better to just configure your browser to not accept webp in the first place.

>>107039606
Fair enough, I'll look into that. Thank you

>>107039189 (OP)
right: sovl
left: sovlless

>>107039643
If you use Firefox, there's an option in about:config you can set for the accepted image types, or there's an extension called 'Don't Accept WebP' if you're lazy.

>>107039691
You can't see the difference on a phone, dumbass.

>>107039741
I tried that and some websites just won't display images at all.

I HATE THE ANTICHRIST

Encode with jpegli

>>107039756
wtf is that?

>>107039765
Don't worry about it babe, it's over your head.

>>107039765
troonware

>>107039345
bumping because of this image

Does ANY place at all allow you to upload custom Webp images? I don't give a fuck about the lossy part, the lossless part reduces animated pixel art GIF filesize by like 50-80% and that's pretty cool.

i think i have same battery with older name

so blown up that screen is cracked maybe its time to let go

>>107039189 (OP)
let me guess...
you used some shitty jpeg encoder from 1980 instead of a modern one lie mozjpeg
(ignore the retard that will reply to this post claiming mozjpeg outputs non standard jpegs that aren't compatible with regular jpeg decoders, he's completely braindead)

>>107039189 (OP)
Lossless to WebP is bad.
Lossless to the same size JPEG is worse.
JPEG to WebP is the fucking worst of all of it. And also 99% of how WebP is used nowadays.
On the contrary, JPEG to JPEG-XL has no additional loss, and what should really be used instead if people insist on converting.

>>107044626
Except it wasn't lossless, OP converted from >>107039194

Lossless JPG conversion of jpeg xl is pretty cool but it won't be useful until more software/hardware support is added. Even then shaving 70-80% filesize with webp with a small hit in quality is still pretty alluring to most people. What really needs to happen is phone cameras encode to jpeg-xl by default at reasonable quality levels like say 80%. Images will be small in file size and other web image formats will offer 0 advantage.

Otherwise I consider jpeg-xl still in the thawing phase of freezer to oven pipeline.

>>107044254
4chan converts all my mozjpeg JPGs to normal JPGs so I dunno man, something's up.

>>107039196
Shut up.
Your (You)s belong to me now.

mozjpeg proofs for anyone wondering

And here is the mozjpeg jpg itself. Filesize won't match to 4chan one.

Also it's still blocky as fuck IMHO compared to the smaller Webp.

>>107044899
I've explained how it works 50 times already and you just won't listen, kill yourself.

>>107044951
When I download this JPG, it's bigger in filesize. Only explanation I can think of is there's some kind of decoding problem that 4chan detects and then converts my mozjpg JPG to a "normal" JPG, whatever the fuck that means...

>>107044968
I'm not the same anon. Why is 4chan ruining my small filesize mozjpg JPGs...

And converting them to "normal" JPGs?

>>107044941
>>107044951
>this retard is still at it, almost a year later
truly incredible, how the fuck does he sperg every jpeg related thread this fast anyways? does he have a filter on his rss reader for this? why?

>>107044992
>i'm not the same anon, but I also have total brain damage and write posts the same exact way
sure, I should just feeding the troll I guess, but like, you aren't even trying.

>>107044975
When I ask for proof of mozjpeg producing non spec compliant jpeg files, I never get an answer. Only explaination I can think of is that you're full of shit.

>>107045000
>>107045007
Why the fuck does 4chan need to (((optimize))) my fucking small JPGs by making them... bigger in filesize.

Do you have any idea how insane you sound?

>>107045030
because 99% of jpegs out there aren't optimized that well, and their optimizer isn't as good as mozjpeg's
again, how many fucking times do I have to repeat the same simple concept for you to understand it?
>Do you have any idea how insane you sound?
do you have any idea how retarded you sound?
Show me actual proof of a mozjpeg encoded jpeg being non spec complaint or I won't bother replying anymore, no point sperging the thread further for your dumbass bullshit, anybody reading this convo with an half working brain will understand you're just spreading misinformation/trolling for no reason at all anyways.
and no, that proof cannot be "passing the jpeg through an optimizer that's not as good (or tuned for faster speeds) as mozjpeg inflates its filesize", because again, that's obviously perfectly normal and makes total sense to anyone with a working brain, it doesn't prove anything beyond the fact that you're very stupid.

>>107045030
>why does youtube need to optimize my perfect x264 veryslow encode by making it much worse quality and bigger in filesize?
clearly because x264 is producing non spec compliant h264 streams!
gotcha!!! x264 is bad!!!
you could've come up with a better trolling attempt that doesn't make you sound like a complete retard to anyone that understands the basics of the topic that's being discussed, stop it.

>>107045082
>>107045129
Alright so I looked into it further and things still don't make sense because SSIM is telling me there are no pixel level differences in my mozjpg JPG and the "normal" JPG 4chan converts it to after upload.

>[Parsed_ssim_0 @ 0xb400007d7174f540]
>SSIM Y:1.000000
>(inf) U:1.000000
>(inf) V:1.000000 (inf)
>All:1.000000 (inf)

I see no other logical explanation other than 4chan converting my mozJPG upload to a "normal" JPG. WHATEVER THE FUCK THAT MEANS.

Anyway I'm done with this topic. I don't give a FUCK about this stupid piece of shit troon JPG encoder. Mozilla deserves to burn for making something as stupid as this.

>>107045206
>so I looked into it further and the output from 4chan's lossless optimizer is lossless according to ssim
...jesus christ, why do you keep embarassing yourself more and more, what are you going to do next? discover that FLAC produces an exactly identical bitstream as the original PCM stream after decode? oh no, that would lead you to realize that there's something wrong with flac, it's clearly not being spec compliant when you convert an mp3 to it! it becomes bigger than the source mp3 but the output bitstream is the same! what the fuck is going on!!!
>I see no other logical explanation
because the one I gave you 200 times already doesn't exist apparently
>WHATEVER THE FUCK THAT MEANS.
see? you're literally telling us "i have no fucking idea what i'm talking about and just inventing stuff out of thin air"
>Anyway I'm done with this topic
you say this pretty much everytime, but you always come back whenever mozjpeg is mentioned, what kind of brain illness do you suffer from?
>I don't give a FUCK about this stupid piece of shit troon JPG encoder. Mozilla deserves to burn for making something as stupid as this.
you don't understand how something works, so it's that thing that is stupid, not you, okay.
and yes, I broke my own rule that I wouldn't have replied without proof.
jpeg is such a simple codec that you can literally encode one using pencil and paper, it should be very easy to prove when something's wrong with how a jpeg is encoded, why don't you go ahead and figure that part out? oh yeah you couldn't even tie your shoes.

>>107045290
I don't really understand any of this but does the recent 4chan hack possibly explain this? Like is 4chan still using outdated software on this serves causing problems with mozjpeg uploads?

https://www.portnox.com/blog/cyber-attacks/ghostscripted-how-4chan-got-haunted-by-2012-tech/

On a related note I think Webp2 works just fine on 4chan if anyone is interested in uploading smaller/higher quality images. Big downside is max image resolution is 2048x2048. I might make a thread about it tonight or some other night this week if anyone cares. Unlike most of you I actually have shit to do and don't wake up and fall asleep to 4chan threads all day long.

File size before upload is:

41.5 KB (42,544 bytes)

>>107045482
>Webp2
anon i just learned about the jpegli encoder what do you mean 'webp2".

>>107045482
File size after upload is:

41.4 KB (42,465 bytes)

Hmmmmmmmm, it's even smaller. Probably just stripping some metadata off.

>>107045496
Technically Google's bastard son after they adopted AVIF. He's been kicking rocks all this time and kinda felt bad for the little guy so I decided to give him a home here on 4chan.

>>107045534
>Hmmmmmmmm, it's even smaller
must be producing a non compliant vp9 stream then! broken encoder!
oh and you're also still doing that retarded bullshit where you include a bunch of useless comands in your ffmpeg script so that it's a 1 second long 1 fps video instead of... literally just a single frame that is displayed the same way on 4chan and won't close after a second when viewed on mpv as it would be correctly recognized as "image" rather than "video", yup, you never get better do you
of course you'll now claim you're not the same retard spewing bullshit about mozjpeg, you turn your trip off for that shit, I wonder why...

>>107045733
You're retarded m8. If 4chan had a VP9 decoding problem the file size would have been bigger not smaller.

4chan does however seem to have a serious mozjpg decoding problem if it can't maintain the optimized huffman tables or whatever and the file size goes up.

That's all that's really happening here AFAIK.

>>107044254

i had to delete two jpg i downloaded in winxp machine hate when that happens

>>107045910
>If 4chan had a VP9 decoding problem the file size would have been bigger not smaller.
literally where the fuck is this rule written? you invented it yourself
>As Far As I Know
...well you quite literally don't know shit

>>107045534
>posting still image as webm
kill yourself

>>107045910
>>107046008
>turns trip off
>resumes sperging the entire thread with bullshit, samefagging in the process
seriously, why are you like this, kill yourself, it's never too late.

>>107046036
It's unironically the only improved image format we're allowed to use here.

>>107046017
>>107046036
Mozjpg optimizes huffman tables (saves space). 4chan can't decide this fucking advanced technology from the future (ie it's perpetually stuck in 2012) so it converts to a JPG with unoptimized huffman tables (file size goes up).

That's it bro, stop making a speech about this shit you fucking inbred sperg.

>>107045733
>must be producing a non compliant vp9 stream then!
>implying

>>107046036
>still SEETHING in 2025

>>107047268
Why did you bump this thread if you don't like it? Are you fucking stupid or something?

>>107047330
>meaningless comment

>this whole thread
"I don't understand this and it makes me mad!!"
Here is an example of how to properly encode this file with the typical use-case.

>>107046117
4chan can't decode this fucking advanced technology from the future so it converts to a jpg with unoptimized huffman tables
...how can it convert it when it cannot decode it? this is enough to make your whole retarded ass theory fall apart
converting a format to another quite literally means 1. decoding 2. encoding it again
if 4chan is messing with the image in any way, it literally means it decoded it succesfully.
let's see what retarded ass theory you come up with next to "debunk" this, will be fun.

>>107047968
Why is this so god damned blurry? It looks like you jerked off and smeared your cum all over the image.

>>107048226
Simple, 4chan cannot decode optimized huffman tables. It has 2 options:

A) Refuse the upload. The user shits his pants and spams nigger frogs non-stop for weeks using the sharty proxies.

B) Have kikeflare handle the JPG it cannot decode. All that happens is the optimized huffman tables are converted back to unoptimized ones and 4chan can now decode it.

WE KNOW 4chan hasn't updated shit because their solution to the recent hack was....


*drum rolls*

BAN PDF

>>107048391
>Have kikeflare handle the JPG it cannot decode
literally all jpegs uploaded on 4chan are optimized through cloudflare
>All that happens is the optimized huffman tables are converted back to unoptimized ones and 4chan can now decode it.
...why would 4chan have to decode the jpeg afterwards? once again, none of what you're saying makes any sense

>>107048448
Nope, all JPGs with unoptimized huffman tables are read and processed by 4chan directly. That's why there's more than 1 4chan image CDN. They COULD, you know, update the server and shit, finally give it the ability to decode JPGs with optimized huffman tables. Save MONSTROUS amounts of bandwidth in the process...

>"Nah, here's H264!"
I wish I was joking.

>>107048496
>Nope, all JPGs with unoptimized huffman tables are read and processed by 4chan directly.
...pick a fucking lane
now you're back to "4chan processes the jpegs directly", so again, how the fuck is 4chan converting a jpeg it cannot decode?
>"Nah, here's H264!" I wish I was joking
what's wrong with h264 support? 90% of webms here is shit ripped from social media sites, transcoded (badly) into vp8, usually unwatchable quality
h264 support means higher quality and efficiency plus one less step needed for posting, nothing wrong with it.

>>107048613
I'm saying 4chan does both. They directly handle images they're able to decode on 2012 software. When said 2012 software cannot decode an image they hand it over to kikeflare, who then converts it to a decodable image for 4chan. It's VERY plausible that a simple update would fix this.

Mozjpg is fully intended to be backwards compatible with UPDATED JPG decoders which 4chan clearly doesn't have.

As for H264, see picrel. Now take into account that the bitrates allowed by 4MB file size limits are dogshit low. You can barely post a high quality webp with VP9, AV1 was going to give 4chan Blu-ray quality at 4MB. But nah, here's an extremely outdated video codec that looks like shit especially at low bitrates.

https://www.nvidia.com/en-us/geforce/guides/broadcasting-guide/

>>107048790
now you're literally flip-flopping between two different concepts (you went back from "4chan processes all jpegs directly" to "kikeflare does it", without ever addressing anything.
jesus christ kill yourself already.
>Mozjpg is fully intended to be backwards compatible with UPDATED JPG decoders
source for this claim? let me guess nowhere to be found
>As for H264
completely irrlevant to this (rather pointless) discussion, but sure let's see what bullshit you're spewing here
> Now take into account that the bitrates allowed by 4MB file size limits are dogshit low. You can barely post a high quality webp with VP9, AV1 was going to give 4chan Blu-ray quality at 4MB. But nah, here's an extremely outdated video codec that looks like shit especially at low bitrates.
...and how would that be worse than those h264s being transcoded to vp8? once again, you literally don't address ANYTHING of what i've said, you ignored every single line, what the fuck am I even supposed to reply to?
also
>using an ngreedia comparison for your argument
holy fucking shit
yeah it's 100% bait at this point, again, why do you find the concept of being made fun of online amusing?
oh yeah right why the fuck am I even asking questions? you won't reply to any of it anyways
once again, rope, end it.

>>107048790
>Mozjpg is fully intended to be backwards compatible with UPDATED JPG decoders
I don't think you understand what "backwards compatibility" means

I found this, might better help shed light on why 4chan does not support JPGs encoded with mozjpg.

https://dev.exiv2.org/projects/exiv2/wiki/The_Metadata_in_JPEG_files

Normal huffman table:

FFC4 001F 00
00 01 05 01 01 01 01 01 01 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 0A 0B

Optimized huffman table:

FFC4 001B 00
00 03 01 01 01 01 01 01 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09

The first table has 12 symbols and the second has 10. This is 100% compliant with the JPG spec, defined by the DHT (define huffman table). Maybe older JPG encoders ignore DHT? In the cjpegli encoder you'll find this:

--fixed_code
Disable Huffman code optimization. Must be used together with -p 0.

-p N, --progressive_level=N
Progressive level setting. Range: 0 .. 2.
Default: 2. Higher number is more scans, 0 means sequential.

I'll test a jpegli encoded JPG upload with this. File size before upload: 255 KB (261,874 bytes)

4chan JPG filesize: 255 KB (261,912 bytes)

38 bytes added so this is a clue, maybe?

>>107048865
You clearly underestimate how outdated 4chan is. What makes you believe they have switched to 2025 JPG decoders and still aren't using 2012 JPG decoders full of 0 days?

Have you ever thought that maybe one of those 0 days can be sneaked onto mozjpg look-a-like JPGs?

PLEASE keep in mind that 4chan's solution to the recent hack was "BAN PDF IMMEDIATELY!".