Why won't this take off? JPEG and PNG are ancient shit

Why won't this take off? JPEG and PNG are ancient shit

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AOMedia_Video_1
flif.info/
businessinsider.com/facebook-350-million-photos-each-day-2013-9
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Lossless_Image_Format
developers.google.com/speed/webp/download
people.mozilla.org/~josh/lossy_compressed_image_study_july_2014/
libjpeg-turbo.org/About/Mozjpeg
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

cus images is the least of our problems with today's bandwidth
it's stupid fucking torrents and netflix 4k crap

i see fuck all difference

No. None of this two is the problem. Problem is the efficiency. For fuck's sake, a normal web page is 2-3MB. Original DOOM was smaller than that.

these images are not comparable at all.
what are you even trying to do?

Because jpeg is the standard supported by everything and there's no reason to change the standard unless it has some real advantages

What's the difference here? Is it that your meme format is lighter than jaypeg?

The advantage is a smaller file size with the same amount of definition you dumbfucks

There is an overarching conspiracy to make the internet as inefficient as possible.

Why not? They were probably compressed individually to each format and then edited into a png, which is lossless and thus preserves the compression comparison. Only thing missing is the file size of each individual image, but Webp is undoubtedly smaller for equal or greater quality.

...

Do I look like I know what a jpeg is?

THE JOOOOOOOOS

they both have the same information to my eye, what the fuck!!!!!!!!!!!!!?????? rapor.

Welp you posted a PNG, friend. How would we know the difference? So, answering your OP: the reason is that nobody even knows this shit exists, and jpg works just fine. There's more important shit to optimize right now.

Literally fuck this. At least I save bandwidth by running uMatrix and blocking everything but the necessary.

>muh two megabytes

>there is a thing that can be optimized
>let's not do that because reasons

Some people still use XP, it's hard to move forward. Unless a major player starts using webp we'll be using JPEG and PNG for years to come.

>it's hard to move forward
No kidding. Some people still use Window, even after the fact.

>what is ABC analysis
Time is a finite resource, and if you have to spend your time (and money) to reduce bandwidth, it's better to use it in the stuff that have most impact, i.e. not jpg pictures.

...

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AOMedia_Video_1

AV1 will kill WebP in compression & image quality

WebP is outdated VP8 codec

What about flif.info/ ?

plus its not like webm where there is a need to replace an antiquated format with limitations

>Doom was 3mb
The original WAD file was 10.6mb. The demo might have been 3MB but I dunno.

>Dude. Software is getting more and more bloated for no reason
>Just buy more ram xD

You guys are retards

Not to mention even if it's only 5% smaller for websites that host thousands (millions?) of photos it would be a huge difference.

>(millions?)
Try billions. Major sites like Facefuck and Imgur must have entire warehouses full of HDDs to store all their shit.

businessinsider.com/facebook-350-million-photos-each-day-2013-9

You never quit, uh?
Did you, also, just got this """assignment"""?

>jewggle will end in this decade
screencap this for posterity

.flif has already made .webp obsolete.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Lossless_Image_Format
flif.info/

PNG is lossless so yeah

I made two posts so far. Does it trigger you that this isn't an amd vs nvidia thread? Fuck off.

the original demo fit on a 1.38MB floppy disk, you tool.

because they are not the exact image

The demo was a single episode. The guy didn't mention the demo. He just said "Doom."

>30 year old algorithm is slightly worse than proprietary shit
the advantage of JPEG is that:
it's fairly simple
requires little to no floating point math
can be imlemented on shitty embedded hardware for whatever reason

btw you can still optimize huffmann tree and get better results. but it's not used as much as it should because for several MP photos it takes too much time

>webp
>proprietary

this. plus its under the lgpl

>google
>open sores
also missing the point

Label the file sizes you dumb fuck.

And yeah JPG is fucking dogshit and should be sweeped under the fridge like WMA. Webp would only replace JPG but PNG as well (supports lossless RGBA encoding).

Blame javascript.
"Oh, we can have pajeet include dynamic buttons that swirl when moused over? DO IT NAO!"

apng didn't take off either. Although it is way better than gif.

The bigger issue is phone cameras with insane resolutions. So everyone and their mom make 10 MB picture with an 8k resolution which is so blurred that the same amount of detail could be shown in a 480x360 picture. But who cares, you don't see that on a 5 inch 4k phone display

Anyway I'm honestly not sure why Webp hasn't taken over JPG and PNG. Like 80% of all browsers support it and you can easily install the Webp codec in Windows easily.

On average Webp will save 50% file size compared to JPG and 25-50% compared to lossless PNG. It's like people hate saving bandwidth or something.

Reread the article dumbass. On Wired, it says that Doom was 2MB when compressed.

You can post 1 frame webm videos on Sup Forums to lower the filesize. You get the added bonus of pissing off Apple users.

hehe I miss those threads.

I can't wait for more formats that windows will take 10 years to add thumbnail support to

then what is the relevance of the OP picture lol

You don't have to though.

>"WebP Codec for Windowsthat implements the Windows Imaging Component decoder interface and allows you to open WebP files using Windows Photo Viewer, view WebP thumbnails in Windows Explorer, and support WebP in other programs that use WIC (such as Microsoft Office 2010)."

developers.google.com/speed/webp/download

WebP is better than tuned JPEG encoders (e.g. MozJPEG) in some tests, worse in others, depending on both what and how you measure.

> people.mozilla.org/~josh/lossy_compressed_image_study_july_2014/

The format known to be better than anything else in almost any circumstance is HEVC (single frame as used in BPG files), but it's obviously a patent/royalty/litigation minefield.

None but see for an actual useful comparison.

>2014
Also mozjpeg is completely irrelevant. Most browsers don't support it and little to no sites adopted it. To add insult to injury, modern Webp still beats mozjepeg by like 30% in visual quality and ebay, facebook and many other major websites are already using webp.

I noticed that youtube uses webp images if you're running Chrome.

can you post an example?

The joke is the picture shows neither jpg or webp, but is png.

>mozjpeg is completely irrelevant. Most browsers don't support it

are you a fucking moron, or just a jewgle shill? mozjpeg is a jpeg encoder with a pngcrush equivalent built in, not its own file format.

>"mozjpeg' is not intended to be a general JPEG library replacement. It makes tradeoffs that are intended to benefit Web use cases and focuses solely on improving encoding. It is best used as part of a Web encoding workflow. For a general JPEG library (e.g. your system libjpeg), especially if you care about decoding, we recommend libjpeg-turbo."

libjpeg-turbo.org/About/Mozjpeg

hmmmmmmmmmm

>two doubleclick advertisement tokens have been deposited on you google wallet

You realize googles gets 0$ if you use webp commercially right? And that browsers like ice weasel and brave support it?

do you not understand the difference between a library and a file format?

libjpeg, libjpeg-turbo, and mozjpeg are just different codec implementations for the exact same JPEG file format.
In fact the entire point of mozjpeg was to squeeze more life out of the file format to avoid breaking existing browsers and file readers.

Not him but he's still somewhat right. The mozjpeg encoder is a meme. It does reduce JPG file sizes somewhat but still not as much as modern Webp.

It was a good honest attempt to make JPG better but in vain in the end. There are decoding problems when you encode a JPG with the mozjpeg encoder. As far as I remember chrome and internet explorer could not decode JPGs encoded with the mozjpeg JPG encoder.

mozjpeg was a lackluster endeavor, but he's an imbecile who got called out for saying "most browsers don't support it".

both pics are just as grainy

OP was trying to compare file sizes and failed miserably, he ought to whipped with salt on his back his transgression.

Also see

>Want to use some unit
>B in Air/Sky meme everywhere

Thanks, Terada

Who /p/ here?

I always wondered why JPEG was still the best anyone could come up with for images. HEVC is about 4x smaller than MPEG2 at the same quality so it makes sense that a more complex algorithm can replace JPEG too.

I do think Sup Forums should support this. There's no reason not to.

Oh shit
Is there one for WebM?

VP9 webm support when?

When moot realizes his mistake and comes back to 4chang.

and the downside of jpeg is it looks like fucking horseshit

It's that fucking WebP autist shitposting again.
Kill yourself already, and stop spilling onto Sup Forums while you're at it.

they don't store the image data as jpg, they transcode and cache it on demand

a better standard would still save bandwidth and cache space

There's a lot more redundancy available for removal in video content than in most still images, and recent progress has been more about throwing computation at getting at that, so there will probably never be comparable gains in still image compression.

JPEG has stuck around since it was actually pretty damn good for what it was. The compression and decompression speeds were great since the algorithm is so simple and so easily parallelized.
> convert pixels to brightness-chroma colorspace
> optionally downsample chroma layers by even integer ratios
> take a bunch of 8x8 DCTs
> scale the DCT value matrixes down, with high frequencies preferably losing the most detail
> zip the results, which gets high gains since most of the maxtrix slots will be 0s now

In comparison, more advanced codecs might have to do 10x or 100x more work to get 30% smaller file sizes at the same output quality, and decompression is similarly slower but not by nearly the same degree.

Computers are much faster now than when jpg was standardized.

Fucking nerd.

lol jk. That was actually pretty informative man. Computing power has been steadily increasing though, soon even vacuums will have 24 core xeons. JPG needs to fucking die already.

Also, gpu accelerated graphics in everything make it a moot point.

because no one cares about saving bandwidth anymore
jpeg and png are ubiquitous, webP is not.

>Why won't this take off? JPEG and PNG are ancient shit

The enemy of the best isn't the bad, but the good enough.

>because no one cares about saving bandwidth anymore
They do. As people switch to 4K monitors, content providers will want to save bandwidth. 50% file size reduction may mean jack shit on 100x200 but not in 4K images.

>jpeg and png are ubiquitous, webP is not.
Webp is certainly heading in that direction. Might fail but it has like 10X more promise than that meme jpg library encoder thing from cuckzilla.

Facefuck is a legit site

Yeah what the fuck man we went to the moon with two typewriters tied ass to mouth how dare filesizes get larger as new technological capabilities are developed wtffff

Wtf I hate the future now!

The optimization is logistically irrelevant at this time. You're talking about rewriting shitloads of programs to satisfy a, what, 50% increase in efficiency? Worthless.

WebM was adopted because it satisfied a hole in what Flash could do. JPEG does what WebP does perfectly fine.

user, 50% is a shitload of optimization

Why bother optimizing it when we can compress it until it's unreadable?

webp still looks like dogshit when decreasing file size.

Because I like my dank maymays crispy and fresh


Off-topic , captcha now wants me to teach him to identify salads. What Google wants with that?

> not choosing the Use Legacy CAPTCHA option

but uMatrix still has to read what its going to block.

Because if you take a gear out of a machine it will stop working. Changing an industry standard is equivalent to taking a gear out of everybody's machines.

muh video

>take out
Why does supporting one thing mean not supporting another?

You can only vote either Trump or Hilary, not both.

It doesn't. We aren't talking about removing anything, we are talking about changing the standard.

To be honest JPEG compression is too much for our needs IMO.

After all, it was developed in a time when people had shitty 56k modems, but now we have 100Mbit/s fiber modems and mobile phones that can download at 50Mbit/s

Why haven't people haven't come up with a better image compression that trades file size for quality, instead of quality for file size like JPEG does?

I mean compressing a 10MiB bitmap to a 500KiB JPEG is all fine and dandy if you're living in 2001, but at 2016 standards I'd prefer having a higher quality 3MiB image over that 500KiB trash

But of course, image hosting companies are the main decider, and those kikes want to reduce every image to it's smallest amount of bytes possible so that they can save 1/1000th of a cent on each image viewed.

Imgur is the worst for this, after promising at the launch of it "not to recompress images" they now do it relentlessly, even recompressing PNG files with their own PNG encoder. Anyone who still uploads to Imgur obviously doesn't care about image quality.

>but now we have 100Mbit/s fiber modems
No we don't.

BPG is currently the best image format.
I was a big webp enthusiast, but the serious flaws in the format.
I was excited about the Daala but Daala was abandoned to make way for AV1 which is based on VPx I now consider it disgusting, with things like "prioritize real-time" or "optimized for the Internet."