340

JPEG is Dying - And that's a bad thing | 2kliksphilip(www.youtube.com)

posted
by
Avatar
ProdigalFrog@slrpnk.net
in
Avatar
technology@lemmy.world
150 comments
hidereport
Sort:
HotTopControversialNewOld
You are viewing a single thread.
View all comments View context
Avatar
TheRealKuni@lemmy.world
4 points

Compared to something like JPEG XL? It is hands down worse in virtually all metrics.

Only thing I can think of is that PNG is inherently lossless. Whereas JPEG XL can be lossless or lossy.

permalink
report
parent
reply
Avatar
hedgehog@ttrpg.network
4 points

I haven’t dug into the test data or methodology myself but I read a discussion thread recently (on Reddit - /r/jpegxl/comments/l9ta2u/how_does_lossless_jpegxl_compared_to_png) - across a 200+ image test suite, the lossless compression of PNG generates files that are 162% the size of those losslessly compressed with JPEG XL.

However I also know that some tools have bad performance compressing PNG, and no certainty that those weren’t used

permalink
report
parent
reply
Avatar
KairuByte@lemmy.dbzer0.com
2 points

It has a higher bit depth at orders of magnitude less file size. Admittedly it has a smaller max dimension, though the max for PNG is (I believe) purely theoretical.

permalink
report
parent
reply

Technology

!technology@lemmy.world

Create post

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots

Community stats

  • 14K

    Monthly active users

  • 6.8K

    Posts

  • 156K

    Comments

Community moderators