WHY IS JPEG SUCH FUCKING SHIT!

WHY IS JPEG SUCH FUCKING SHIT!

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_cinema
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Material_Exchange_Format
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Cinema_Package
piedpiper.com/
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

Because you're a fucking retard.

Awesome. Great fucking post you neet.

...

...

That exclamation looks like it was made by a retard, did you mean to use a question mark?

...

Because normies don't care. We could be using webp by now

Yea just noticed, my bad.

...

Fuck them.

Fun fact: digital cinemas are literally displaying a stream of individual jpeg pictures.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_cinema
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Material_Exchange_Format

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Cinema_Package

Lossy compression. It's like listening to mp3s with your eyes.

Stay butthurt, you mouth breathing shit stain.

Fuck lmao

It is but JPG is much more shit.

I am not, you fucking autistic man child.

because it's intended for photographs and you set the quality too low

But it happens when you repost, and download.

Because it doesn't use middle out compression algorithims

>load .PNG into graphicsgale
>62 unique colours!
>load .JPG into graphicsgale
>9000 unique colours!

Fuck me out Sup Forums.

.JPG comparison

50% quality, 44000 colours

Jpeg is NOT intended for things with few colors and sharp lines that you want to preserve. Lossy compression in general is unsuitable for those things.

jpg is ass
What is it intended for?

Photographs.

But won't it go to shit? Like when you send it to someone, and that person posts it, and somebody else downloads, and etc.

It works REALLY well for photographs.
It absolutely sucks for anything not photographs (or photograph like, such as a screenshot from a modern videogame).

Use .PNG for pixel art and non-photographic data that you want to rescale and alter.

Use .JPG for photographic data you want to upload to the web, but it's better to use .PNG unless you're on super slow internet.

Long story short, .PNG is lossless and is used when quality is important. .JPG is lossy and is used when you don't want to run up >data caps.

Gotta post those reaction images on Sup Forums under 4MB senpai

If you make a change to the image then it introduces artifacts, if you just save the image and repost it then it doesn't do anything.

FLIF
L
I
F

>2016
>complaining that a standard made in 1990 is shit

JPEG and JPEG2000 are not the same

>If you make a change to the image then it introduces artifacts, if you just save the image and repost it then it doesn't do anything.
posting it on Facebook reduces the size and quality

>.JPG is lossy and is used when you don't want to run up >data caps.
web dev 2016: save 300kb on images by serving .jpg instead of .png, add 2.5Mb of .js libs

This. Considering when it was made, JPEG is fucking alien technology. It really is remarkably good for how simple it is.

Is extremely good and, after further development, may be the first post-JPEG format to actually get serious traction - JPEG2000 (totally different wavelet-based) has existed for over a decade and basically nobody uses it.

>WHY IS A TWENTY YEAR OLD FORMAT NOT AS GOOD AS A TWO YEAR OLD FORMAT REEEEEEE

JPEGs encoded properly look fine. If you have a -qscale 10 JPEG file, obviously it's going to look like dog shit.

It's like complaining that MP3 sounds like shit, when you're listening to a 48kbps file.

I heard JPEG's Weissman score is like 0.1

>itt retards who don't get that you can have uncompressed jpgs

piedpiper.com/

JPEG does photographs well but can't do lossless (also nonstandard vector alpha is possible)
PNG can do lossless and alpha but can't so CMYK or 32bit color
TIFF can do everything above but is nonstandard and can't do animation (neither can the other two though)

TIFF-A, BPG and FLIF seem promising though. They're the future. Webp is a meme

>1 KB

computerphile has a nice video series of jpeg

>itt: a retard who thinks that you can have uncompressed jpgs

What's wrong with BMP HTTP already supports gzip compression, so it makes no difference whether you use PNG or BMP in the web.

>compressing a file every time you send it instead of once

1. gzip != gzip. HTTP compression has to be fast and efficient, so it uses weaker settings, and it usually doesn't even apply to binary files.

2. Not all PNGs are compressed with gzip. Specialized libraries like zopfli can achieve better compression ratios.

3. There are more differences between PNG and BMP than just the compression level. (e.g. colorimetry metadata, high depth support)

Also,

-rw-r-----. 1 nand nand staff_u:object_r:user_tmpfs_t 15Mb May 14 14:16 clownSuperXBRnoAR.bmp.gz
-rw-r-----. 1 nand nand staff_u:object_r:user_tmpfs_t 8.0Mb May 14 14:16 clownSuperXBRnoAR.png

>JPEG2000 (totally different wavelet-based) has existed for over a decade and basically nobody uses it.
Because it's worse than JPEG. Doesn't stop the JPEG2000 lobby from pushing it in digital cinema

Facebook probably reencodes images that are uploaded

Facebook is just trying to match the quality of the images to the quality of the text