4 ms·
I investigated using JPEG XL for high speed applications but encoding time was much slower than JPEG with libturbojpeg even if you reduce encoder complexity to
by greenavocado 2y ago
I investigated using JPEG XL for high speed applications but encoding time was much slower than JPEG with libturbojpeg even if you reduce encoder complexity to a minimum
- SG- 2y agoit's much much faster than the other alternatives tho. and staying with JPEG isn't really ideal with it's low quality and limited options going forward.
- doublepg23 2y agodoesn't mozjpeg get parity with WebP? https://siipo.la/blog/is-webp-really-better-than-jpeg https://siipo.la/blog/is-webp-really-better-than-jpeg
- lonjil 2y agoNot for a long time. The WebP encoder has improved a lot since MozJPEG was released. But these days we have Jpegli [1] which beats WebP at higher quality levels. [1] https://github.com/google/jpegli/ https://github.com/google/jpegli/
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- dvhh 2y agoI have a similar experience where jpeg encoding and webp encoding result in far less computing resources use that jpeg XL or AV1, and was curious at what other people used (as I might be using the wrong library).
- JyrkiAlakuijala 2y agoMozJPEG encoding times are not that great but decoding is still fast. I believe with Jpegli you can have faster encoding than with MozJPEG.