3 ms·
Or JPEG XL can takeover all of it. - JPEG XL can do lossless compression better than PNG if I’m right. - At low bit rates, JPEG XL isn’t that far from AVIF qu
by worrycue 3y ago
Or JPEG XL can takeover all of it.
- JPEG XL can do lossless compression better than PNG if I’m right.
- At low bit rates, JPEG XL isn’t that far from AVIF quality. You will only use it for less important stuff like “decorations” and previews anyway so we can be less picky about the quality.
- For the main content, you will want high bit rates which is where JPEG XL excels.
- Legacy JPEG can be converted to JPEG XL for space savings at no quality loss.
- ksec 3y agoThank You both. Couldn't have said it better. The use cases of WebP is limited, the actual advantage over decent JPEG and isn't that big, and unless you use a lot of lossless PNG I would argue it should have never been pushed as the replacement of JPEG. To this day I still dont know why people are happy about WebP. According to Google Chrome, 80% of images transferred has an BPP 1.0 or above. The so called "low bit rate" happens at below BPP 0.5. The current JPEG XL is still no optimised for low bitrate. And judging from the author's tweet I dont think they intend to do it any time soon. And I can understand why.