3 ms·
Something seems wrong im this article. The side-by-side comparison shows 4 formats: · Original PNG image (2.6 MB) · Name "high_fidelity.png", but in fa
by gforce_de 2y ago
Something seems wrong im this article.
The side-by-side comparison shows 4 formats:
· Original PNG image (2.6 MB)
· Name "high_fidelity.png", but in fact 298.840 bytes and format: JPEG
· JPEG XL (default settings, 53 KB): indistinguishable from the original
· Name "high_fidelity.png.jxl.png", but in fact 3.801.830 bytes and format: PNG
· WebP (53 KB): some mild but noticeable color banding along with blurry text
· Name "high_fidelity_webp.png", but in fact 289.605 bytes and format PNG
· JPEG (53 KB): strong color banding, halos around the text, small text hard to read
· Name "jpeg_high_fidelity.jpg", but in fact 52.911 bytes and format JPEG
The comparison does not make any sense,
everything is just wrong. Also when encoding the large original PNG image to AVIF, it has only 20.341 Bytes with no visual change, see: http://intercity-vpn.de/files/2024-10-27/upload/ http://intercity-vpn.de/files/2024-10-27/upload/
- eviks 2y ago> high_fidelity.png.jxl.png means the original was - loss-converted to JXL, measured as 53k - then losslessly converted to PNG to be displayed on the website
- throwaway0665 2y agoPNG is lossless so they are using it to display compression artifacts of formats that may not have had wider browser support.
- spider-mario 2y ago52 911 bytes instead of 53 kB is really not that far off. And your AVIF is certainly not without visual changes. The colours are off and there is visible ringing.
- gforce_de 2y agoyou are right, i changed it to "acceptable visual changes".
- morpheuskafka 2y ago> "jxl.png", but in fact 3.801.830 I guess that is because the noise from the lossy encoding creates more entropy, that then has to be losslessly encoded as PNG, which pushes the files size above the original?