• cyd@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    49
    ·
    3 months ago

    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
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      38
      ·
      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
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      29
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      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.

    • redisdead@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      3 months ago

      The issue with jpegxl is that in reality jpeg is fine for 99% of images on the internet.

      If you need lossless, you can have PNG.

      “But JPEGXL can save 0,18mb in compression!” Shut up nerd everyone has broadband it doesn’t matter

      • TheGrandNagus@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        58
        ·
        edit-2
        3 months ago

        What a dumb comment.

        All of that adds up when you have thousands or tens of thousands of images. Or even when you’re just loading a very media-heavy website.

        The compression used by JPEG-XL is very, very good. As is the decoding/encoding performance, both in single core and in multi-core applications.

        It’s royalty free. Supports animation. Supports transparency. Supports layers. Supports HDR. Supports a bit depth of 32 compared to, what, 8?

        JPEG-XL is what we should be striving for.

          • TheGrandNagus@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            28
            ·
            edit-2
            3 months ago

            shut up nerd

            He said, on Lemmy. On the Technology community. On a submission about image formats.

            If nerdiness, or discussion about image formats or other tech bothers you, why are you even here?

            Moving on from that…

            There’s storage improvements. There’s server side considerations for storage, processing, and energy efficiency. There’s poor mobile data connections to contend with.

            There’s better compression (I’m guessing you don’t like artefacts all over images, or other oddities stemming from bad compression?)

            There’s still HDR support. There’s still the support for animations. There’s still support for transparency. There’s still support for layers.

            Imagine being upset about the prospect of their being a vastly better image standard. Are you that desperate to be contrarian? Are you that desperate for attention?

            • lefaucet@slrpnk.net
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              3 months ago

              You are totally right AND He’s making a valid point with his sarcastic joke of “shut up, nerd!”

              “Nobody cares” means companies dont want to spend money to incorporate it if there’s no demand from consumers.

              Most consumers have no idea what a jpeg even is.

              It won’t be until Apple or someone brands it as an iPeg and claims you have a smol pp if your device doesn’t have it that folks will notice.

              Im reminded of telling folks about shoutcasts and nobody cared. Then apple comes out with podcasts and everyone was suddenly excited about 8 year old streaming tech

              • FooBarrington@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                3 months ago

                Yet for some reason, browsers started supporting other formats like WebP, even though even fewer consumers wanted them. This makes complete sense when looking at it from the perspective “the companies try to save money and increase market share without caring about the consumer”. How do you explain it from yours?

                • lefaucet@slrpnk.net
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  3 months ago

                  Excellent point on the webp.

                  I’m guessing that being google’s baby they integrated it into chromium

            • redisdead@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              edit-2
              3 months ago

              He said, on Lemmy. On the Technology community. On a submission about image formats.

              I know my audience.

              I’m not upset there’s a new better stronger faster harder standard, I’m just telling you why nobody cares about your jpeg2000 v2

              • TheGrandNagus@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                18
                ·
                edit-2
                3 months ago

                Whatever you say. After all, you must be right. You’re a contrarian on the internet. You’re quirky and different. You’re not like the other girls.

      • Takios@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        50
        ·
        3 months ago

        That 0.18mb accumulates quickly on the server’s side if you have 10000 people trying to access that image at the same time. And there are millions it not billions of images on the net. Just because we have the resources doesn’t mean we should squander them…that’s how you end up with chat apps taking multiple gigabytes of RAM.

      • ayyy@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        13
        ·
        3 months ago

        “I’m very small minded and am not important or smart enough to have ever worked on a large-scale project in my life, but I will assume my lack of experience has earned me a sense of authority” -Redisdead

      • MonkderVierte@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        edit-2
        3 months ago

        While AVIF saves about 2/3 in my manga downloads (usually jpg). 10 GB to 3 GB. Btw, most comicbook apps support avif.

        • redisdead@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          3 months ago

          10 whole GB of storage? I understand now why you need such an ultimate compression technology, this is an insurmountable amount of data in these harrowing times where you can buy a flash card the size of a fingernail that can hold that amount about 25 times.

      • AdrianTheFrog@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        3 months ago

        Check how large your photos library is on your computer. Now wouldn’t it be nice if it was 40% smaller?

        • redisdead@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          3 months ago

          I have several TBs of storage. I don’t remember the last time I paid attention to it.

          I don’t even use jpeg for it. I have all the raw pics from my DSLR and lossless PNGs for stuff I edited.

          It’s quite literally a non issue. Storage is cheap af.

      • ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        3 months ago

        It’s competing with webp and it helps prevent jpg artifacts when downloaded multiple times

          • ayyy@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            3 months ago

            Slightly higher in this thread you spout off complaining about pedantry, and here you are, being even more pedantic?

          • ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            edit-2
            3 months ago

            If you download and upload repeatedly you potentially lose some data each time which is how we got jpeg memes

    • Aux@lemmynsfw.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      3 months ago

      The problem with XL is that it has way too many features. HDR, for example. Firefox doesn’t support HDR at all, Chrome added HDR image (not video) support just late last year. And that’s just one feature of XL… Even if both Google and Mozilla will start actively working on support we won’t see anything useful for a few years. And then how do you even create images in the first place?