3 ms·
> I think the need for lossless images within a web page is extremely niche. Sure, but if companies are going to put in the effort to support a format, you mig
by throw0101a 21d ago
> I think the need for lossless images within a web page is extremely niche.
Sure, but if companies are going to put in the effort to support a format, you might as well work towards supporting the 'full capabilities' of it, that way it can be used in as many workflows as possible.
You want your camera, photo editing software, colour correction process, etc, to support lossless. One of your final outputs may be for the web where lossless is not important, but there may be others as well (e.g., as a graphic in a video production).
- jaffathecake 21d agoThis is a thread and article about JPEG XL on the web.
- throw0101a 21d agoJPEG XL on the web does not arrive there ex nihilo: there is a production pipeline that creates and puts files on web servers and points to those files in HTML tags. That production pipeline may also be used to generate images for things besides the web, so the creators have the choice of having one set of files used everywhere, or one set for the web and a second set for other things. That JXL lossless is overkill for the web may be overridden by the fact that people don't want to deal with the hassle of multiple sub-sets of files (i.e., laziness or "efficiency").