3 ms·
I wonder how much of JPEG good quality is that we are quite accustomed to its artefacts.
by afiori 1y ago
I wonder how much of JPEG good quality is that we are quite accustomed to its artefacts.
- BugsJustFindMe 1y agoAt high quality, the artifacts are not visible unless you take a magnifying glass to the pixels, which is a practice anathema to enjoying the photo.
- afiori 1y agoI am referring to highly compressed images or low resolution ones, at high bitrates mostly all formats look the same. what i mean is that jpeg squarish artifacts look ok while av1 angular artifacts look distorted
- whaleofatw2022 1y agoThere's something to be said about this. A high quality JPEG after cleanup can sometimes be larger than an ARW (sony RAW) on export and it makes no sense to me.
- Arainach 1y agoI've never seen JPEG artifacts on images modified/saved 5 or fewer times. Viewing on a monitor including at 100%, printing photos, whatever - in practice the artifacts don't matter.
- somat 1y agojpeg artifacts mainly show up on drawings. where they seriously degrade masking operations. which is a hobby of mine. so I always appreciate it when a drawing is a png. rather than a bunch of jpeg goop.
- a-french-anon 1y agoFor non-photographic images, I'm horribly sensible to the ringing artifacts. Thankfully, there's waifu2x (in denoise mode only) to remove those when textures don't confuse it too much and I use MozJPEG to encode, which really improves the result.
- mrob 1y agoJPEG artifacts are less disturbing because they're so obviously artificial. WEBP and similar artifacts look more natural, which makes them harder to ignore.
- afiori 1y agoI think I agree, low quality JPEGs give the idea of looking through slightly imperfect glass, WEBP and AV1 look a bit more like bad AI