6 ms·
If it's reversible, why not just store as JPEG XL and then convert back when it's served? Does it take a lot of processing time?
by geokon 11mo ago
If it's reversible, why not just store as JPEG XL and then convert back when it's served? Does it take a lot of processing time?
- stingraycharles 11mo agoIsn’t that what the comment you’re replying to is suggesting?
- bmacho 11mo agoI think GP only wants to convert images back for users with legacy browsers, not for everyone. So converting 100% of the images needs more compute money than the amount of storage money it saves, but only converting ~1% of the images on-the-fly would be worth it financially.
- OneDeuxTriSeiGo 11mo agoYou can do that and that's one of the big appeals. You can serve bost JXL and JPEG from the same source and you8 can actually serve downscaled versions of the JXL image from the original bytestream. Also OP did say "transcode on the fly" to serve JPEG, not actually storing as JPEG.