3 ms·

JPEG2000 looks better to me, these new "videoframe" formats are blurry at higher compression levels and lose detail.

• userbinator 5y ago
  I suppose that's what happens with a format originally designed for video --- things that wouldn't be noticeable in a split-second frame but increase compression are valued, whereas in a still image format, it's to be avoided.
• aidenn0 5y ago
  Indeed, I was looking at encoding black-and-white manga, and I dialed in the quality knob based on "Is the text crisp" "Are cross-hatching textures reasonably preserved" and "Lack of visible artifacts around the edges." I then compared the file sizes and JP2K won hands down. It also had the advantage of already being supported in PDF, so I can just bundle them up into a PDF for relatively[1] easy reading. [edit] Someone pointed me to "Squoosh" and AVIF (which was still very experimental when I previously ran the tests; there was only a single encoder I could find, it took forever and crashed a lot) seems to win over JP2K; a quick estimate makes it look about 30% smaller (My first test image showed up at almost 50% smaller when I tuned it, but experience tells me that I need some padding if I'm just going to point it at a large directory tree). 1: A few PDF readers have failed to properly render the JP2K pages, but modern poppler and muPDF based readers both seem to handle it fine.