JPG IS ANCIENT

why browsers don't upgrade their support for the newest image compression formats just like they have done with video formats?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=_h5gC3EzlJg
flif.info/lossy.html
wyohknott.github.io/image-formats-comparison
smbc-comics.com/comics/1517781110-20180205.png
bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1294490
blog.mozilla.org/research/2013/10/17/studying-lossy-image-compression-efficiency/
research.mozilla.org/2014/07/15/mozilla-advances-jpeg-encoding-with-mozjpeg-2-0/
github.com/danielgtaylor/jpeg-archive/
github.com/danielgtaylor/jpeg-archive/issues
gigaom.com/2014/07/19/the-story-of-webp-how-google-wants-to-speed-up-the-web-one-image-at-a-time/
google.com/search?as_st=y&hl=en&tbs=ift:webp&tbm=isch&sa=1&ei=3aKLWvKmGo-yggeInKXIBA&q=soylent&oq=soylent
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

javascript is intrusive

>javascript

>jpeg is bad
>Uses shitty compression and blames the file type
Okay.

>javascript

There already are.
BPG is literally the worst of them all and isn't supported by anyone.

Higher chance of JpegXR becoming a standard than BPG.

>javascript

>javascript
found your problem, maybe if they used something better... like flash...

because all replacements have their "default" values in-between the visual quality valleys and most of their artifacts are really, really shitty

Also why javascript? can't fucking write a decoder?

>javascript
I'll pass.

everyone knows FLIF is the best successor to JPG

see
youtube.com/watch?v=_h5gC3EzlJg
flif.info/lossy.html

JPEG XR is shit though. I rather have something based of Daala or AV1.

WebP
e
b
P

FLIF vs JPG

>javascript
no

>WebP
see

I know it is, but
- It's better than BPG
- Has a higher chance of becoming a standard than BPG

This thread wasn't asking for alternatives, it was trying to shill a terrible format that no one wants.

That should have been a 7 color PNG.

wyohknott.github.io/image-formats-comparison

They're not even in the same range.
Of course FLIF would look better. There are 17890 vs 2224 bytes...

watch the beginning of the video

who /.png/ here?

We know, we have tons of viable replacements for it.
But until everybody starts using those formats by default, jpeg will be eternal

what happens in the web is that images consistently get saved, reuploaded and reencoded before it reaches you.
that's their lifecycle.
FLIF is the only one that addresses this issue

FLIFhas progressive decoding support but images look like shit when partially decoded compared to other formats with lossy compression. It's only interesting in lossless compression anv even then it's beaten by Daala, VP9, AV1…

lacks some sort of SNR metric

>youtube

that's just zack being a piece of shit tho desu senpai
smbc-comics.com/comics/1517781110-20180205.png
original is around 743KB, it can be shrunk lossless to almost half of that, pic related

>js decoder
top kek

proof of concept
anyone could make an webassembly version if people showed an interest

Who gives a shit other than morons who have nothing better to do than obsess over mere kilobytes with use cases so banal and browser-bound that the idea of an image format that requires fucking third-party JavaScript just to view doesn't even phase them?

Videos aren't expected to be universally viewable on almost any device with a screen made in the last 25 years, they're far larger and more computationally expensive to the point that reducing the workload or the amount of space they consume far outweighs the potential detriment of making them incompatible with classes of devices that were never well equipped to view them in the first place.

Javascript isn't inherently bad. The problem is the lack of insight in the workings of the script due to many frontend developers opting for an UglifyJS deal where they remove all the whitespace making the code unreadable by anyone but autistic savants.

>that's just a proof of concept, anyone could make it even more incompatible and obfuscated if people showed an interest
this is literally you

My god, the one on the right. She's beautiful

Who cares? It works don't it? Must be or it wouldn't be still in use now. For all your long term archival shit just save them as Uncompressed Tiff format. That way you know least .tiff will be view able in 20+ yrs with zero image degradation. Photoshop makes doing this a easy thing. Batch mode is your friend, tell it folder A with .Jpegs, then select .tiff w/no compression, then output folder destination. it keeps all the image profile/color info so nothing gets lost.

are you fuckin dumb mate

>drag an image from chrome to the desktop
>it automatically saves in their autist webshit garbage format instead of proper PNG
>have to save as or use another browser, can't even turn that shit off

Reason a lot of Jpgs are shit is due to someone cranking up the compression factor (quality gets tossed out the window) or someone reduces the resolution from the source file or a combination of both. A proper photo must be 300 dpi at whatever resolution you need in order for it to look great. Pixels are just what the image is at screen res of 72dpi, so a lot of images you see are 3000 x 4000 pixels end only being 8x10 or smaller prints at 300 dpi. A poster quality photo (18x24) is least 112MB at 300 dpi. A 8x10 is 21mb. This is why a lot of so called "HR" pics are not really HR, the math and pixels don't lie. Wouldn't you like a nice quality poster of Taylor Swift to hang on your wall?

yes I would like

You people are retarded. The example uses javascript because the browser doesnt support BPG. Once it's supported it wont need javascript.

>javascript used to produce images
It's like someone said "Hey we're dynamically producing every single part of our webpage through javascript except for the images" and it gave some retard an idea for a new framework

Webp already won. FLIF almost made the cut but requires some gay javascript or something. Chrome and chrome derivatives support it natively.

ebay, netflix, and facebook already use it.

example; found a 70MP image of Taylor Swift Reputation album cover. Pixel dimensions are over 8000 each way. However the file size is only about 6mb. So that tells us that the compression factor has been cranked up pretty high on it. Properly it would be 200mb and at 300 dpi it would be 28 inch by 28 inch. Google image search used to tell you/give you option to see file size plus mp count. no longer the case, now you limited by mp count

>2018
>lossy anything

>javascript

1 minute of lossless 1080p60fps video: ~30GB
1 minute of lossless 16-bit 24KHz stereo Audio:10.5 MB
lossless 30 MP image: ~100MB

Yes the fuck we anything lossless you fucking mongrel

Learn English.

But how am I supposed to pronounce bpg?

>what is lossless compression
Granted for video it's not great but you can do a lot better for audio and images.

bee pee jee

Not really especially if the sound/image is complex. At best you can vectorize the image if it's a simple cartoon but that takes hours to do and is illegal to do if IP is present.

I demand we block jpg on Sup Forums
>artifacting
>no transparency layer

.png is our new standard.

Because jpeg is supported by absolutely everything made in the last 25 years. Software of hardware. Chink shit or good brands.

There are dozens of better alternatives. JPEG2000, WebP, H264/HEVC still picture profile based formats like BPG and HEIF, etc. None of them will ever replace jpeg because the latter is both extremely ubiquitous and, lets face it, good enough at compressing images for 99% of use cases in a time where gigabit internet connections are now offered in residential neighborhoods.

But go and try to convince people about it. They will just come with even more formats, each one more efficient than the last, but still miss the fucking point.

why not just webp, it literally does both and supports transparency with lossy encoding

Also webp can do 24-bit animations as well, no shitty video player required and no 256-color palet GIFs anymore.

freetards are in charge

Does Firefox support WebP yet?

>Lossy Free Lossless Image Format
Oh I hate this.

You're confusing/conflating "Lossless" with "raw".

No, and the bug has been untouched for four months now. bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1294490

No, you are.
blog.mozilla.org/research/2013/10/17/studying-lossy-image-compression-efficiency/
research.mozilla.org/2014/07/15/mozilla-advances-jpeg-encoding-with-mozjpeg-2-0/

.png masterrace desu

Not really any different, lossless compression has always been the bane of the tech world because either:
a.) it requires a ton of cpu muscle to encode and decode
b.) usually only shrinks file size by ~10-20%

You'll never see some dipshit converting 4:4:4 pro-res to lossless hevc video for example.

>2014
I knew this would never catch on, webp still wipes the floor with it while taking less time to encode lmao.

>why browsers don't upgrade their support for the newest image compression formats
Because the newest JPEG tools outperform every single one of them.
It's not about the format, it's about the toolset. The newest image formats have recently developed toolsets that apply every new technique we know. Meanwhile, we keep still using JPEG utils written a decade ago. That's why they TYPICALLY outperform JPEG. But if you use modern JPEG encoders, you can get fantastic results. Here, try jpeg-recompress: github.com/danielgtaylor/jpeg-archive/

>10-20%
citation fucking needed.
Unless the only shit you're downloading is memebeat music you can get a consistent 30-50% savings on file size. Well mastered classical and most pop still gets you 30-50% savings with FLAC vs WAV.

And ProRes isn't even lossless lol. It's whatever Apple means by near lossless.

>still
It never did and still doesn't. Just look at the numbers. Fuck off, Google shill.

>github.com/danielgtaylor/jpeg-archive/issues
jesus

Except it does, webp still looks better visually than the sjw jpeg encoder will ever be able to. How much is mozilla corp paying you btw?

nope, there's a reason production goes from high-bitrate lossy encodes to again lossy encodes with lower bitrates before blu-ray discs touch anything.

>webp still looks better visually [sic]
Not by any objective metric.

Oh you mean PSNR, the thing nobody fucking uses since WW2?

PSNR is used in every codec comparison because it's objective, even if it reflects nothing about actual perceptual (if subjective) quality.
It's the only thing you can put in a slideshow to prove your codec is better than the competition.

So you admit I'm right and you don't have any objective metric to back yourself up and the best you can do is desperately commit an appeal to novelty fallacy? That's okay, I accept your conceding.

Because it's what the industry uses. Name any paper or literature that discusses the so-called technical superiority of converting lossy to lossy.

Wake me when SJW-corp has a VQMT comparison of their butchered turbo-jpg library and webp.

Okay, and you wake me when webp is relevant.

Right so my points still stands, nobody wants to bother with lossless compression except some shitty chinese cartoon group and 40 year old "audiophiles" that are literally going deaf but constantly deny it.

>"Netflix (S NFLX) has beguntouse the format within its new TV UIto load thumbnails more quickly. Facebook (S FB) isusing WebP to serve images within its mobile apps, and companies rangingfrom Tinderto Ebay (S EBAY)are experimentingwith WebP as well."

gigaom.com/2014/07/19/the-story-of-webp-how-google-wants-to-speed-up-the-web-one-image-at-a-time/

boy xander, you must get tons of HRT pills for making those posts :^)

>0.000000000001% usage next to the ubiquitous, widespread and omnipresent JPG
Wow, come back when you're relevant.

Would ypu look at that xander, they have your favorite beverage in webp :^)

google.com/search?as_st=y&hl=en&tbs=ift:webp&tbm=isch&sa=1&ei=3aKLWvKmGo-yggeInKXIBA&q=soylent&oq=soylent

Nearly every Blu-ray has Dolby TrueHD which is lossless audio. Next.

Your mockery sounds desperate, user.

Actually, DTS-HD is much more common than TrueHD, since the fallback codec (DTS) is better than the latter's (AC3).
Although TrueHD has been getting some more use lately thanks to Atmos.

...

left looks like watercolor

So lossless compression isn't a meme since it's being used in industry? What a turnaround. LPCM was a thing back with DVD as well, though it was more common to get lossy AC3, DTS or whatever shit was being used with MPEG-2..

WebP's strength is in its lossless encoding, which is much better than PNG. Which is a pity since it's not even based on VP8 like the lossy parts, so it could be it's own separate format and not be dragged down by this silly fight with jpeg.

because alts are probably covered by submarine patents out the ass. like JPEG2000

That was 4 years ago, a lot has changed since then. Webp is here to stay now that such a significant portion of users use chrome. ~60% aint too bad for supporting webp desu. SJW browser is almost 5% market share now lmao.

DVD Audio was mostly 24bit 48/96khz MLP (TrueHD variant) or LPCM, with some cases of DTS 24bit 48khz, so almost always lossless. But it was also pretty rare as it had no chances to replace CDs, which is a pity since it could have freed us from the 16bit 44khz hell.

DVD movies however did not use lossless audio tracks, but 5.1 AC3 and DTS instead. Lossless audio tracks for movies became the norm with Blu Ray.

forgot pic related

Generally speaking, you're right. LPCM or lossless audio on DVD-Video did exist though, as I have a few DVDs that have LPCM as its only audio track.

Personally I'd be happy if browsers started supporting ALL of JPEG, and not just the baseline.

12 bit HDR images, lossless encoding, better compression. All unavailable because they decided to stick with the default set of options in the library.

That's because webp does all that + animation/ transparency in lossy/lossless encoding

Wavelet based JPEG2000 was not that bad for intra image format. No use with motion compensation, though.

WebP doesn't support any bit depths over 8 bits per channel, as far as I can tell. Jpeg supports 12 bits per channel, but all browsers have that feature disabled.

That's dumb. When you change the quality of the webp the file size decreases as a result. Then if you try to upscale it from that low quality, it distorts.

Meanwhile FLIF Quality scale is not functioning as the file size remains constant regardless of quality change.

Music is in far worse shape. mp3s are still the dominant format despite being replaced by AAC and OGG. Honestly hard drive space is so cheap now there's no real reason to use anything but FLAC unless you're using a phone.

The whole reason people still use jpg, jpeg, bitmap is because legacy...
.png used to be the new kid on the block but it's been solidly ingrained on everything for a decade.

SVG is the better option but normies dont even know it exists so I wouldn't hold my breath for webp.

It's actually a really cool property of the format. If I understand correctly, the encoder is always lossless, but they have a "pre-processor" that lowers an image's quality such that it becomes more compressible by the lossless encoder.