3 ms·

Beyond the compression (which is amazing), JPEG is also extremely fast when implemented well. I'm not aware of any other image format that can encode at 60fps+

Beyond the compression (which is amazing), JPEG is also extremely fast when implemented well. I'm not aware of any other image format that can encode at 60fps+ @ 1080p on a single CPU core. Only mild SIMD usage is required to achieve this. With dedicated hardware, the encode/decode cost quickly goes to zero. I struggle to understand the justification for other lossy image formats as our networks continue to get faster. From a computation standpoint, it is really hard to beat JPEG. I don't know if extra steps like intra-block spatial prediction are really worth it when we are now getting 100mbps to our smartphones on a typical day.

MrDOS 1y ago
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44298656 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44298656 You might be getting 100 Mbps to your smartphone; many people – yes, even within the United States – struggle to attain a quarter of that.
- bob1029 1y ago
  What is the likelihood of experiencing precisely marginal network conditions wherein webp improves the user experience so dramatically over jpeg that the user is able to notice? If jpeg is loading like ass, webp probably isn't going to arrive much faster.
  - MrDOS 1y ago
    I'm sorry, I misunderstood your doubt of the usefulness of other lossy formats as criticism of using lossy formats in general in the face of higher bandwidth. Reading too fast, never mind me... :)
- GuB-42 1y ago
  If you have slow internet on your smartphone, chances are that you also have a slow smartphone, and therefore decoding performance matter, it may also save you a bit of battery life for the same reason, which may be important in place with little internet coverage. You have to find a balance, and unless (still) pictures are at the center of what you are doing, it is typically only a fraction of the bandwidth (and a fraction of the processing power too). We are not talking about 100 Mbps, we downloaded JPEGs from dialup connections you know. You don't even need to go into the Mbps unless you are streaming MJPEG (and why would you do that?).
- tossaway0 1y ago
  25Mbps is extremely fast in relation to the benefits when browsing the web of better image compression options than JPEG.
wizardforhire 1y ago
Exactly! It’s like asking why we still use wheels when hovercrafts exist. If humans are still around in a thousand years they’ll be using jpegs and they’ll still be using them a thousand years after that. When things work they have pernicious tendency to stick around.
- pbhjpbhj 1y ago
  Can JPEG do 3D somehow (I'm thinking VR/AR)? DVDs lasted well, until the medium itself moved to cheap NAND flash and then various SSD technologies. When/if simple screens get usurped then we'll likely move on from JPEG. I'm sure you were being a little flippant but your last sentence shows good insight. Someone said "we just need it to work" to me the other day and the "if it works there will be little impetus to improve it"-flag went off in my brain.
  - wizardforhire 1y ago
    Thanks, thats a great insight! Idk about 3d, but I’ll assume someone probably will tape something out necessity if they haven't already. …and yes, very flippant! But not without good reason. If we are to extrapolate; the popularity of jpeg, love it or hate it, will invariably necessitate it’s continued compatibility contributing to my pervious statement. That compatibility will invariably lead to plausible hypothetical circumstances where future developers out of laziness, ignorance, or just plain conformity to norms will lead to its choice and use perpetuating the cycle. The tendency as such is that short of a radical mass extension level like event brought about by mass wide spread technological adoption such as what you describe is why I don’t see it going away anytime soon. Not to say it couldn’t happen, I just feel it’s highly improbable because of the contributing human factors. That jpeg gets so many complaints is I feel for two reasons. One, its ubiquity and two, that we actually see it! Some similar situations that don’t get nearly as much attention but are far more pervasive are tcp/ip, bash, ntpd, ad nauseam. All old pervasive protocols so embedded as to be taken for granted, and also not able to be seen. I’ll leave with this engineering truism that I feel should be more widely adhered to in software development, especially by UI designers: if it ain’t broke don’t fix it!
  - 1y ago
illiac786 1y ago
That’s why I am confident LLMs won’t change as much as some may think: after 20+ years of search engines, some still can’t be bothered to do a simple search. (Either that or you’re trolling, I can’t decide I have to say.) Hence, we can wait another 20 years and some will still not use LLMs for everyday questions. To answer your (false?) question, there’s a long list of benefits, but I’d say HDR and storage efficiency are the two big ones I can think of. The storage efficiency especially is massive, especially with large images.
redeeman 1y ago
transparancy? hdr? proper support for lossless? theres many things lacking in jpeg
Lammy 1y ago
> I struggle to understand the justification for other lossy image formats as our networks continue to get faster. Because Google's PageSpeed and Lighthouse both tell people to use WebP, and a large percentage of devs will do anything Google say in the hopes of winning better SERP placement: - https://web.dev/articles/serve-images-webp https://web.dev/articles/serve-images-webp - https://developer.chrome.com/docs/lighthouse/performance/uses-webp-images https://developer.chrome.com/docs/lighthouse/performance/use...

MrDOS 1y ago

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44298656 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44298656 You might be getting 100 Mbps to your smartphone; many people – yes, even within the United States – struggle to attain a quarter of that.

bob1029 1y ago
What is the likelihood of experiencing precisely marginal network conditions wherein webp improves the user experience so dramatically over jpeg that the user is able to notice? If jpeg is loading like ass, webp probably isn't going to arrive much faster.
- MrDOS 1y ago
  I'm sorry, I misunderstood your doubt of the usefulness of other lossy formats as criticism of using lossy formats in general in the face of higher bandwidth. Reading too fast, never mind me... :)
GuB-42 1y ago
If you have slow internet on your smartphone, chances are that you also have a slow smartphone, and therefore decoding performance matter, it may also save you a bit of battery life for the same reason, which may be important in place with little internet coverage. You have to find a balance, and unless (still) pictures are at the center of what you are doing, it is typically only a fraction of the bandwidth (and a fraction of the processing power too). We are not talking about 100 Mbps, we downloaded JPEGs from dialup connections you know. You don't even need to go into the Mbps unless you are streaming MJPEG (and why would you do that?).
tossaway0 1y ago
25Mbps is extremely fast in relation to the benefits when browsing the web of better image compression options than JPEG.

wizardforhire 1y ago

Exactly! It’s like asking why we still use wheels when hovercrafts exist. If humans are still around in a thousand years they’ll be using jpegs and they’ll still be using them a thousand years after that. When things work they have pernicious tendency to stick around.

pbhjpbhj 1y ago
Can JPEG do 3D somehow (I'm thinking VR/AR)? DVDs lasted well, until the medium itself moved to cheap NAND flash and then various SSD technologies. When/if simple screens get usurped then we'll likely move on from JPEG. I'm sure you were being a little flippant but your last sentence shows good insight. Someone said "we just need it to work" to me the other day and the "if it works there will be little impetus to improve it"-flag went off in my brain.
- wizardforhire 1y ago
  Thanks, thats a great insight! Idk about 3d, but I’ll assume someone probably will tape something out necessity if they haven't already. …and yes, very flippant! But not without good reason. If we are to extrapolate; the popularity of jpeg, love it or hate it, will invariably necessitate it’s continued compatibility contributing to my pervious statement. That compatibility will invariably lead to plausible hypothetical circumstances where future developers out of laziness, ignorance, or just plain conformity to norms will lead to its choice and use perpetuating the cycle. The tendency as such is that short of a radical mass extension level like event brought about by mass wide spread technological adoption such as what you describe is why I don’t see it going away anytime soon. Not to say it couldn’t happen, I just feel it’s highly improbable because of the contributing human factors. That jpeg gets so many complaints is I feel for two reasons. One, its ubiquity and two, that we actually see it! Some similar situations that don’t get nearly as much attention but are far more pervasive are tcp/ip, bash, ntpd, ad nauseam. All old pervasive protocols so embedded as to be taken for granted, and also not able to be seen. I’ll leave with this engineering truism that I feel should be more widely adhered to in software development, especially by UI designers: if it ain’t broke don’t fix it!
- 1y ago

illiac786 1y ago

That’s why I am confident LLMs won’t change as much as some may think: after 20+ years of search engines, some still can’t be bothered to do a simple search. (Either that or you’re trolling, I can’t decide I have to say.) Hence, we can wait another 20 years and some will still not use LLMs for everyday questions. To answer your (false?) question, there’s a long list of benefits, but I’d say HDR and storage efficiency are the two big ones I can think of. The storage efficiency especially is massive, especially with large images.

redeeman 1y ago

transparancy? hdr? proper support for lossless? theres many things lacking in jpeg

Lammy 1y ago

> I struggle to understand the justification for other lossy image formats as our networks continue to get faster. Because Google's PageSpeed and Lighthouse both tell people to use WebP, and a large percentage of devs will do anything Google say in the hopes of winning better SERP placement: - https://web.dev/articles/serve-images-webp https://web.dev/articles/serve-images-webp - https://developer.chrome.com/docs/lighthouse/performance/uses-webp-images https://developer.chrome.com/docs/lighthouse/performance/use...