• SelfProgrammed@lemmy.today
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    35
    arrow-down
    9
    ·
    edit-2
    2 days ago

    Lossy compression is antiquated. Jpg should no longer be used as it’s not 1999. I will die on this mole hill.

    • oktoberpaard@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      23 hours ago

      I disagree, but I do agree that there are better options available than JPEG. Lossy compression is actually what allows much of the modern internet to function. 4K HDR content on Netflix wouldn’t be a thing without it. And lossy compression can be perceptually lossless for a broader range of use cases. Many film productions use high quality lossy formats in their production pipelines in order to be able to handle the vast amounts of data.

      Of course it all depends on the use case. If someone shares some photos or videos with me to keep, I’d like them to send the originals, whatever format they might be in.

      • SelfProgrammed@lemmy.today
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        14 hours ago

        I understand the need for compression and re-encoding but I stand by the claim we should not use a container that will eat itself alive a little bit every time it’s edited.

    • Valmond@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      22 hours ago

      Yeah, let’s all post RAW 40MB photos right from the phone on … The Internet!

      What a good idea.

      Is there a specific reason? And subsidiary do you only listen to 96-bits FLAC too? Should video not be compressed either?

      I mean, I’m all in with you when it comes to storing my holiday photos, but sharing them? Not so much.

      That said, I grew up with 35kb jpgs so I’m kind of used to it, maybe I’m skewed.

    • fuckwit_mcbumcrumble@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      49
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 days ago

      Lossless compression doesn’t really do well for pictures of real life. For screenshots it’s ideal, but for complex images PNGs are just wayyyy to big for the virtually non noticeable difference.

      A high quality JPG is going to look good. What doesn’t look good is when it gets resized, recompressed, screenshotted, recompressed again 50 times.

        • The_Decryptor@aussie.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          10
          ·
          edit-2
          23 hours ago

          I found quite a lot of AVIF encoders lied about their lossless encoding modes, and instead used the normal lossy mode at a very high quality setting. I eventually found one that did true lossless and I don’t think it ever managed to produce a file smaller than the input.

          Turns out, that’s a well known issue with the format. It’s just another case where Google’s marketing makes AVIF out to be fantastic, but in reality it’s actually quite mediocre.

          • lars@lemmy.sdf.org
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            16 hours ago

            They lied about the lossiness?! I can’t begin to exclaim loudly enough about how anxious this makes me.

            • The_Decryptor@aussie.zone
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              5 hours ago

              The funny thing is, I knew something was off because Windows was generating correct thumbnails for the output files, and at that time the OS provided thumbnailer was incapable of generating correct thumbnails for anything but the simplest baseline files.

              (Might be better now, idk, not running Windows now)

              That’s how I knew the last encoder was producing something different, even before checking the output file size, the thumbnail was bogus.

              • lars@lemmy.sdf.org
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                57 minutes ago

                This story is a nightmare and I’m not sure if it’s better or worse now knowing that it was ancient ICO files that tipped you off.

                Open question to you or the world: for every lossless compression I ever perform, is the only way to verify lossless compression to generate before and after bitmaps or XCFs and that unless the before-bitmap and after-bitmap are identical files, then lossy compression has occurred?

        • morrowind@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          1 day ago

          jxl is a much better format, for a multitude of reasons beyond the article, but it doesn’t have much adoption yet. On the chromium team (the most important platform, unfortunately), someone seems to be actively power tripping and blocking it

          • Gregor@gregtech.eu
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            17 hours ago

            Yeah Google is trying to keep control of their image format and they are abusing their monopoly to do so

      • kernelle@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        1 day ago

        I know compression has a lot of upsides, but I’ve genuinely hated it ever since broadband was a thing. Quality over quantity all the way. My websites have always used dynamic resizing, providing the resolution in a parameter, resulting in lightning fast load times, and quality when you need it.

        The way things are shared on the internet is with screenshots and social media, been like that for at least 15 years. JPG is just slowly deep frying the internet.