6 ms·

Few realise that JPEG was designed for flickery low resolution analogue CRTs and slow CPUs. Nowadays we have digital high resolution screens and fast CPUs. JPE

Few realise that JPEG was designed for flickery low resolution analogue CRTs and slow CPUs. Nowadays we have digital high resolution screens and fast CPUs. JPEG XL has been coming soon for as long as I can remember. Nowadays I like to serve webP from a CDN with the filenames being .jpg even though it is a .webp. This means listening to the request headers and serving what is supported. If someone right clicks and downloads then they get a genuine JPEG, not a webp. Same if they do a 'wget'. This is because the headers are different, with webp not supported. Browsers do not care about filename extensions. Hence you can serve a webP as 'example.jpg'. The benefits of doing this, and having the CDN send the request headers to the origin server (for it to encode webp on the fly) is that the rest of the team, including those that upload images can work entirely in the JPG space they know. The mozjpeg encoder is really neat but all browsers support webp these days. Mozjpeg is JPEG for digital hi-res screens and fast CPUs. Brilliant, but too late. What I am interested in now is larger colour spaces than sRGB. This requires a whole toolchain that supports P3 (or whatever) too. I tried AVIF but in practical testing, webP was simply better. JPEGLI from Google is what I want for the toolchain with the CDN supplying webp. Nobody cares about your images in the vast majority of applications and it is just best to go for highly compressed webp with artefacts just about to cut in. You also have retina nowadays, so using all those pixels, typically 1.5x, is better than 1x. More pixels is a better trade off.

SG- 2y ago
JPEG XL has been here a while but Google has decided to avoid it, even Apple has adopted it. at the same file size webp has worst color banding and way more trouble at keeping small details accurate and compresses too much.
lifthrasiir 2y ago
> Few realise that JPEG was designed for flickery low resolution analogue CRTs and slow CPUs. To my knowledge, JPEG was initially considerably slow to decode with contemporary CPUs. For example a Usenet post in 1992 [1] stated that decoding "big" images like 800x600 takes 1--2 seconds, which was considered fast at that time. JPEG itself was eventually used as a basis of MPEG-1 video codec, so it couldn't be too slow but I'm not aware of other concrete performance concerns. [1] https://groups.google.com/g/comp.compression/c/oabAk3UibhU/m/7rwXkiuMvioJ https://groups.google.com/g/comp.compression/c/oabAk3UibhU/m...
troupo 2y ago
> Nowadays we have digital high resolution screens and fast CPUs. The problem is that even fast CPUs may have their limits. A Macbook with M1 Pro spends up to a second decoding and rendering a HEIC image where a comparable JPG and PNG images are rendered instantly. And this is on an 11-year-old codec
mort96 2y ago
> JPEG XL has been coming soon for as long as I can remember. You must not have a very long memory. The Joint Photographic Experts Group (JPEG) published a call for proposals for what would become JPEG-XL in 2018. That's not so long ago. Are you sure you're not thinking about JPEG-2000?
- jampekka 2y ago
  JPEG-2000 may have poisoned the well. I still, for some irrational reason, get a flashback of it whenever JPEG XL is mentioned. Maybe JPEG earned that with pushing a deliberately patent infested codec with horrible proprietary implementations? And at the time when the god damn GIF patents were causing grief, and h.264 trolls were on the rise.
  - mort96 2y ago
    Could it be argued that a format being patent encumbered was less in focus back then, that "codecs are covered by patents and users of a codec must pay royalties to the patent holders" was just the more or less unquestioned "way things were" back then by groups like ISO? The original JPEG was also patent encumbered after all. This is not a rhetorical question, I was way too young back then to have been aware of the conversations which were going on regarding JPEG-2000. I see that PNG was developed specifically to be unencumbered, which suggests that at least some groups were focused on it, to your point. But I can't tell if that was a mainstream concern at the time like it is now.
  - Mr_Minderbinder 2y ago
    I do not consider JPEG 2000 to be a failure even if it did not displace the old JPEG in all applications. JPEG 2000 “succeeded” but not on the Web. Most people have probably seen more JPEG 2000s than all other image formats combined. Whenever you go watch a movie in theatres you see 24 of them every second; roughly 173,000 for a two hour feature. There were a few open implementations like OpenJPEG, which is the one I use.
- Theodores 2y ago
  Yes, I stand corrected!

SG- 2y ago

JPEG XL has been here a while but Google has decided to avoid it, even Apple has adopted it. at the same file size webp has worst color banding and way more trouble at keeping small details accurate and compresses too much.

lifthrasiir 2y ago

> Few realise that JPEG was designed for flickery low resolution analogue CRTs and slow CPUs. To my knowledge, JPEG was initially considerably slow to decode with contemporary CPUs. For example a Usenet post in 1992 [1] stated that decoding "big" images like 800x600 takes 1--2 seconds, which was considered fast at that time. JPEG itself was eventually used as a basis of MPEG-1 video codec, so it couldn't be too slow but I'm not aware of other concrete performance concerns. [1] https://groups.google.com/g/comp.compression/c/oabAk3UibhU/m/7rwXkiuMvioJ https://groups.google.com/g/comp.compression/c/oabAk3UibhU/m...

troupo 2y ago

> Nowadays we have digital high resolution screens and fast CPUs. The problem is that even fast CPUs may have their limits. A Macbook with M1 Pro spends up to a second decoding and rendering a HEIC image where a comparable JPG and PNG images are rendered instantly. And this is on an 11-year-old codec

mort96 2y ago

> JPEG XL has been coming soon for as long as I can remember. You must not have a very long memory. The Joint Photographic Experts Group (JPEG) published a call for proposals for what would become JPEG-XL in 2018. That's not so long ago. Are you sure you're not thinking about JPEG-2000?

jampekka 2y ago
JPEG-2000 may have poisoned the well. I still, for some irrational reason, get a flashback of it whenever JPEG XL is mentioned. Maybe JPEG earned that with pushing a deliberately patent infested codec with horrible proprietary implementations? And at the time when the god damn GIF patents were causing grief, and h.264 trolls were on the rise.
- mort96 2y ago
  Could it be argued that a format being patent encumbered was less in focus back then, that "codecs are covered by patents and users of a codec must pay royalties to the patent holders" was just the more or less unquestioned "way things were" back then by groups like ISO? The original JPEG was also patent encumbered after all. This is not a rhetorical question, I was way too young back then to have been aware of the conversations which were going on regarding JPEG-2000. I see that PNG was developed specifically to be unencumbered, which suggests that at least some groups were focused on it, to your point. But I can't tell if that was a mainstream concern at the time like it is now.
- Mr_Minderbinder 2y ago
  I do not consider JPEG 2000 to be a failure even if it did not displace the old JPEG in all applications. JPEG 2000 “succeeded” but not on the Web. Most people have probably seen more JPEG 2000s than all other image formats combined. Whenever you go watch a movie in theatres you see 24 of them every second; roughly 173,000 for a two hour feature. There were a few open implementations like OpenJPEG, which is the one I use.
Theodores 2y ago
Yes, I stand corrected!