4 ms·
> This rules out JPEG XL's lossless advantage, which in practice is only roughly 11.9% smaller than lossless WebP anyway > It cannot be worth bringing a new im
by Hendrikto 19d ago
> This rules out JPEG XL's lossless advantage, which in practice is only roughly 11.9% smaller than lossless WebP anyway
> It cannot be worth bringing a new image codec to browsers to save 12%
What? 12% is huge.
- jaffathecake 19d agoYes but the decode time is orders of magnitude more.
- PunchyHamster 19d agowho cares, you're not displaying 60 of them per second
- jaffathecake 19d agoIf the bandwidth saving gets you the image 10ms sooner, but due to the decoding time it takes 70ms longer to display, you're losing. And in the cached cache, the bandwidth saving is gone, and you're still paying the decoding penality.
- spider-mario 19d agoRight, so in that hypothetical scenario where your bandwidth is over ~40MB/s, the bandwidth saving isn’t so relevant. That sounds a bit tautological?
- jaffathecake 19d agoI'm not sure where you're getting those numbers from. But, in the cached case, the download time is very fast, yes.
- spider-mario 19d agoAnd you might want the cache to either take up less space or hold more images.