4 ms·
But compression time were atrocious and decoder were not as fast as the jpeg one (at the time). Marginal support from tool/browser didn't help boost its popula
by dvhh 5y ago
But compression time were atrocious and decoder were not as fast as the jpeg one (at the time).
Marginal support from tool/browser didn't help boost its popularity, and patent situation as pointed in parent comment just shut the coffin on this otherwise ok format.
At the time vanilla jpeg had compression artifact and had worst compression rate, but was good enough at the time, even now because of its ubiquity the "successors" are still having a hard time dethroning jpeg.
- acdha 5y agoExactly: it seems like a classic “Worse is better” situation where JPEG 2000 is basically better across the board on features but none of that mattered as much as being widespread and fast enough. Something like TIFF or BMP wouldn't have been able to do the same since the file sizes are so much larger that they'd have had a noticeable impact on usability but JPEG was far over the “good enough” bar for most users.
- dvhh 5y agoI think facebook even had a backlash when it tried to switch to webp for serving image
- acdha 5y agoYes - anything which breaks “save as” is going to hit backlash. However, as a counter example Apple’s HEIC deployment has been smoother since it works for users when it transparently transcodes shares outside of the ecosystem with HEIC support.