27 year old JPEG format is still the best we have

DEPRECATING USEFUL TECHNOLOGY BECAUSE IT IS OLD IS COUNTER PRODUCTIVE

repeat

DEPRECATING USEFUL TECHNOLOGY BECAUSE IT IS OLD IS COUNTER PRODUCTIVE

THERE IS NO REASON

DO NOT DO IT

FAGGOT

newer == better
deal with it nerd

It is worse than you think. The basic JPEG standard includes lots of features that nothing supports; arithmetic encoding instead of huffman for 15%-20% better compression, 12 bit depth per channel, and a bunch of other features.

These are all supported in the standard library but are disabled in web browsers, and other clients, for no good reason.

Webp has been around for a while now.

irrelevant old test

>saved as .jpg
based

You're a fucking idiot
Seriously, you really are

Who are you to talk like that? You use second hand outdated garbage, you are irrelevant.

You're a complete fucking retarded idiot if you think there's no more room for static image optimisation.

I think there is, just way, way past deminishing returns. Or as far as most websites are concerned.

Webp is now more than twice as efficient as standard jpg. A 40KB Webp will have similar visual quality as a JPG 100-120KB one.

Fantastic, but Jow Forums doesn't support it. Oops! Too bad.

Attached: alwayspng.jpg (600x900, 38K)

No, fucking idiot.
Diminishing returns is only hit once the images start getting smaller than 4kb, the filesystem block size.
They are still way larger than that, therefore there is tons of room for optimisation.
You seriously have no fucking idea what you're talking about.
Just stop.

Attached: flac elephant.png (800x800, 370K)

Windows Photo Viewer and Adobe Photoshop don't support WebP

My filesystem block size is not 4kb, it's set to 16kb. So no problem here. Plus, you can load 100 websites instantly on an SSD. If you don't have an SSD, you're not allowed an opinion on the topic, really.

Shoot yourself

Those pictures or both contained in a compressed jpeg, there is no difference.

JPEG XL actually is the best image format we have (lossy and lossless both), though.

What is scaling

do you have autism?

just because its the most widely used, doesnt mean its the best we have, its just hard to change

even if someone like google and facebook would be pressing the use of say webp, it still would be a matter of years until its near the adoption jpeg has, and as long as no one is converting all their stored images jpeg is stuck with us anyway

16kb is still tons of room. We're talking about images in the megabytes here.
Do you not have a large image collection? Are you unable to grasp the concept of websites having to store all the images they have? It's not all about bandwidth you fucking idiot, and yes bandwidth is important. Less bandwidth means you can load more stuff.
Similarly, much smaller images means you can store much more of them in the same storage space.
Thirdly, your network is the bottleneck for website loading, not your storage device you fucking idiot.
You really don't know anything about this subject.

Agreed. Webm was accepted with open arms and there was tonnes of pressure to adopt it when it was catching on. Webp is seen as more of a nuisance than anything, and the arguments for it are more academic than practical.

Actually it secretly does but you have to use a script. Official Webp support would have already been implemented but it seems iToddlers are huge cash cows or something.

LOONIX

mkdir out
for f in *.{png,jpg}; do ffmpeg -loop 1 -i "$f" -g 1 -c:v libvpx -deadline best -cpu-used 0 -qmin 22 -qmax 22 -t 1 -r 1 "out/${f%.*}.webm"; done

WANKBLOWS

for %%f IN (*.png, *.jpg) do (
ffmpeg -loop 1 -i "%%f" -g 1 -c:v libvpx -deadline best -cpu-used 0 -qmin 22 -qmax 22 -t 1 -r 1 "%%~nf.webm"
)

Attached: 1526986251608.webm (601x508, 38K)

>ITT retards and baiters

Actually now with the near_lossless flag of webp you can finally achieve a good middle ground that in a lot of cases produces higher quality image files for a lower file size compared to standard lossy encoding.

-veryslow lossless avif can already get smaller in size than a good quality but lossy jpeg

>Do you not have a large image collection
Yes, compressed into a single 7z block.
>store
Not my problem. And websites fare well enough not to sponsor useless R&D so you have no arguments here.
>same storage space
Servers do it fine. Everyone does it fine. Only hoarding cretins like you have problems. Get a 4 TB SSD they're cheap.
>network is the bottleneck
500mbps, I can load whatever I want whenever I want with 0 noticeable latency over reduction in kilobytes.
>You really don't know anything
How come I disprove all you so-called arguments? You just have ad hominem.
Sounds like you're just some idiot in the woods with dialup, you have no right to opinion on the topic.

cool, can't wait to use near lossless webp on 4channel!

Do you think bandwidth is free? Can Jow Forums chew through 400TB of bandwidth every month compared to just 100-200TB?

Everybody knows smaller files are smaller brainlet. We're way past that.

Sure thing, otherwise they would reduce allowed filesizes.

Wow I had no idea I could upload 500MB images here.

Attached: 1567223616806.png (340x314, 236K)

Well you _are_ just a tripfag.

-LITERALLY-?

>Pigeonhole principle
uh how

Idiot

Wut, it's a png

I avoid using Chrome since websites load up these dumb webp or whatever images that don't work with any software if I save them.

In like 20 years we'll be getting pictures zoomie zoomed up into our brains

Who gives a fuck

Attached: dcv2x79-3879f722-ae1a-4181-9922-247d04150cb0.png (888x687, 212K)

Same as QWERTY layout, there are objectively better ones out there but it's "good enough" and too widespread to eradicate.

Attached: 1441903560806.jpg (917x810, 116K)

Gimp/ffmpeg can decode/encode them, nomacs can display them and even decode/encode them i think, infraview can give you thumbnails for them. Hell photoshop has 3rd party plug ins to let you decode/encode them.

Is spending 1 minute of google that intellectually challenging for you?

Ebay already uses webp in place of jpg. What's their daily visitor count, like 1 billion?

Why are you shilling so hard for this, do you work for Google?

>he thinks filenames matter

I wish, webp is open source just like how avif will be. You can literally check the code for botnet if you want right now for free:

github.com/webmproject/libwebp/

>not having your CDN automatically serving webp/png/jpeg depending on the connected client
lolomao?

>reading HTTP headers
Sorry, I respect my users privacy

Attached: nkLarpingFaget.png (1440x2601, 271K)

they care, but about video compression, because due to "spatio-temporal" nature of video, this where most gains are

and let's be honest most people don't give a fuck and drag slider to something high like 98, or just save it as png

And just like QWERTY, before you make an "optimization" like this you should step back and question whether it will really improve your life or not.

ah, i see the future.

Attached: output.webm (715x1013, 634K)

webm is a container not a format, you fucking retard cunt

FLIF
L
I
F

>eternally remains in alpha

Autor FLIF love JPEGXL
slideshare.net/mobile/cloudinarymarketing/imagecon-2019-jon-sneyer

holy fucking yikes
have sex
im beggin ya

go have sex then come back and tell me if u still care about 'le optimization' of digital throwaway pictures
if anything needs optimizing its your sex life, and also probably your whole life

Attached: 1566339691236.png (960x882, 1.3M)

Go to church.

Attached: mpvshot0048.jpg (1920x1080, 192K)

jpeg is not lossless

>t.

Attached: ADE265AA-08E9-4955-B162-2739A4FA26E5.jpg (507x386, 34K)

TODAY I WILL REMIND THEM
courtesy of encode.ru

Attached: 1559495435635.png (8466x5633, 2.61M)

>caring this much about inane, inconsequential shit

. H A V E
S

E

X

JPEG is not bad in and of itself. The problem is when fucks crank up the compression factor and quality gets tossed out as a result.

TIFF format. Broad support. No compression, No loss of quality. It is what it is no questions asked. Drives are cheap so is storage space. (fun little tidbit - in a professional print shop they require this format or .pdf before they'd even touch it or consider printing it)

The other thing is dpi (dots per inch) 300 is photo quality. Pictures can have dimensions out the ass but if they can't deliver 300 dpi at "whatever" your print size is then they are not suited for that purpose. So by the by most HR images you see in /HR is not truly high res. You can't print quality posters with them in other words. 24x36 for example is not gonna happen. So what if your printer can do 600 dpi output? The input quality maters more. Garbage in - garbage out.

My local church got replaced my a mosque.

G O

B
A
C
K

>image files are so small that they take insignificant amount of space
No, they aren't. My smartphone makes 10 MB photos. That's 10 GB just for photos from holiday. That's not "insignificant".

It's great that obscure trash supports webp to some extent, however my programs don't.

mactard?

FLIF was absorbed into PIK which was later absorbed into JPEG XL. The next few years will be a format war between AVIF and JPEG XL.

Keep saving thumbnails you fucking retard. A high quality image is 2-10mb or more if you have a high end camera.
Also haven't you noticed that vudeo compression is getting worse? Last time i downloaded a 20 min 1080p episode it was 1.5 gig which is insane.

You realize there is effectively no difference between a 40KB image and an 80KB image when terabyte HDDs are $100, right?
>oh no I'm spending literally hundredths of a hundredth of a cent more storing this jpg
said nobody ever

Because smartphone makers keep upping the resolution to ridiculous levels far beyond what the tiny optics in a phone can actually make good use of. You don't need 20MP of a dog licking itself through a 5mm lens.

Thanks yify

Really though 480P/1080p is still fine for most video. You only need 4k if the following is true:

1.Your living room is the size of an auditorium
2.You got a massive 70+ incher and you sit way to fucking close to it so you can touch it with your hand when your sitting on the couch. In which case give it a few years, enjoy going blind in the meantime, so hey it don't fucking mater what the quality is cause you can't see it anyway.

>That file size
Holy fuck

>Really though 480P/1080p is still fine for most video.
99.99% of digital video you ever consumed was chroma subsampled. So it was really a fraction of the stated resolution. Add to that horrible compression on every streaming service and 4K is actually what 1080p should have been.

>.JPG

last I tried webp it smoothed the fuck out of the images. No fucking thanks.

>spinning rust
>in 2019

Attached: mpvshot0611.jpg (1920x1080, 244K)

When was that, 2 fucking years ago? Have you even tried near_lossless 50-100?

We will probably see an ai-assisted compression format in the near future.

Attached: czkz1vu0g0k31.png (1024x964, 970K)

4 > 1 > 5 > 3 > 2
saying that i've never had sex.

I am ready for them to announce the ability to set how feminine you want the decompression AI to make you look so that way trannies can feel like real women.

>not thinking about the user
Ok, good luck with your clients getting less clicks because their users bandwidth is not enough for your shitty format

>he thinks filenames don't matter

>can't zoom in

but that file size tho

cumbrain

Your reading comprehension is fucking awful man

I think we are talking about web usage

>any year
>SSDs for mass storage
Yeah these movies play so much faster now. Oh wait, there's literally no difference.