3 ms·
> Hype. What do you mean hype? There's actually a 100% chance JPEG-XL is giving a smaller file than JPEG. JPEG XL can compress, losslessly, a JPG file to a sm
by TacticalCoder 2y ago
> Hype.
What do you mean hype? There's actually a 100% chance JPEG-XL is giving a smaller file than JPEG.
JPEG XL can compress, losslessly, a JPG file to a smaller file.
That .jxl can then be decompressed, bit-for-bit, to the original .jpg file (it's not just lossless in the way pixels are encoded: the resulting file can be bit-for-bit decompressed to the original .jpg file)
Gains range, every single time, from 10% to 30%.
Example here:
.. $ ls -l a.jpg && shasum a.jpg
... 615504 ... a.jpg
716744d950ecf9e5757c565041143775a810e10f a.jpg
.. $ cjxl a.jpg a.jxl
Read JPEG image with 615504 bytes.
Compressed to 537339 bytes including container
.. $ ls -l a.jxl
-rw-r--r-- 1 e e 537339 Jul 30 21:22 a.jxl
.. $ djxl a.jxl b.jpg
Read 537339 compressed bytes.
Reconstructed to JPEG.
.. $ ls -l b.jpg && shasum b.jpg
... 615504 ... b.jpg
716744d950ecf9e5757c565041143775a810e10f b.jpg
- duskwuff 2y ago>> Hype. > What do you mean hype? There's actually a 100% chance JPEG-XL is giving a smaller file than JPEG. As a one-word statement, it's a colloquial expression of excitement. OP isn't doubting that JPEG-XL is an improvement over JPEG; they're looking forward to it.
- karim79 2y agoI think it is a great format, I can't wait to see how and if it proliferates. At the same time, looking at Google Trends (just now) reveals that on a global level, in terms of worldwide searches - and in the last 12 months, searches for JPEG XL peaked at around 100, in a single day (sometime in September of last year). That is a horrendously low amount of interest. Without a concerted effort in education (or re-education) it would appear that it doesn't matter even a tiny bit how much better this format is. To put it politely, almost nobody gives a shit. Disclaimer: it is my favourite format.