4 ms·
The problem is that old PNG and JPEG are good enough for most purposes. They are certainly not as efficient but with todays technology and bandwidth, there is l
by GuB-42 4y ago
The problem is that old PNG and JPEG are good enough for most purposes. They are certainly not as efficient but with todays technology and bandwidth, there is little downside to using JPEG and you know it will be supported everywhere.
It is not the case for video. Video is still a huge bandwidth hog, and finding better codecs is worth it, that's why they get better support. Webp is a clever hack as it is essentially a single frame webm video, so if you have webm support, which is worth it, then you can have webp almost for free, JPEG-XL doesn't have that incentive.
- kevin_thibedeau 4y agoWebp max resolution is 16383 x 16383. That is a problem in some applications.
- selcuka 4y agoWhy any modern image spec should have a maximum resolution is beyond me.
- jonas21 4y agoWebP is based on VP8, which is a video format. Video formats can have maximum resolutions to make it easier to implement hardware decoders.
- flangola7 4y agoWhat application? That's 8x 8K or 32x 4K. Even theoretical futuristic giant displays would not need that.
- jerryX 4y agoMany smartphones now have 200MP e.g. allowing to crop, in astronomy they count in gigapixels ...
- flangola7 4y agoA 200MP smartphone is a nonsensical idea, their lenses are not big enough to utilize that many pixels. Even if it was actually possible, that 200MP is getting auto compressed the moment you message or upload it anywhere. I'm asking about legitimate uses.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- enlyth 4y agoAgreed, PNG and JPEG already serve most purposes. JPEG = I want to see the content in the image but don't care too much about the quality PNG = I want a lossless version of this image Since bandwidth is cheap in most places, the only advantage that JPEG XL has is suddenly not that enticing.
- exmadscientist 4y agoIt's not just that. There are purposes that require JPEG and so if I get a WEBP or AVIF or JXL I am actively angry. I was trying to set the desktop background image on a project laptop last week. I found an image I liked, that would immediately remind me what machine this was when I look at it. It was an AVIF. Windows 10 won't accept those as desktop backgrounds. It looked, for all intents and purposes, like the search image results were going to give me JPEGs -- the URL ended in .JPG and had "jpeg" as the media type! -- but that is not what I got. This did not work. Refusing to give up, I eventually determined that using curl to retrieve the image gave me a usable JPEG, and so I got my background and now I can tell this stupid project laptop apart. For my use cases, which is as someone who does light work with images (backgrounds, occasional use in some kind of paint program, occasional insertion into documents or slides), anything that isn't a JPEG or PNG is actively harmful. Not everyone uses images the way I do, but developers need to remember that not everyone is a passive sheep who just stares at things or a power-developer who builds JPEG-XL from source in their sleep. There are people in between, and we don't take kindly to being forgotten.
- jemmyw 4y agoWe shouldn't use a new format because some website sent you the wrong mime type and you don't know how to use an image converter? By that logic we should still be using .bmp files for all images.
- selcuka 4y agoI believe the main point is that Windows doesn't support AVIF desktop backgrounds, which is annoying. PNG and JPG (and possibly GIF) are common denominators for a vast majority of systems and applications.