I can see a shitload of artifacts in the webp and avif

give me jpg or better yet give me lossless

can only imagine how bad those pictures will look after being saved and reposted 30 million times by boomers

>>106502884
it's a thumbnail, they are already 150x150 in the replies, and people on 4chan know how to click an image to expand it.

>>106502859
>AVIF thumbnails already, with WebP
no one uses or cares about this shit

>>106502968
https://i.4cdn.org/g/1757174125323385s.jpg
you sure?

>>106502901
dipshits still save mobile 4chan images, aka all the phoneposters which are 70% of the site

>>106503049
simple, make it desktop only and these thumbnails optional on mobile (via settings) if you want faster browsing

>>106502884
>I can see a shitload of artifacts in the webp and avif

I'd believe the thumbnails are so small that any artifacts should be barely noticeable.

>>106502884
>a thumbnail is supposed to be a quick preview so you can see what the image is about, and expand it to see more detail if you need to
You can increase the avif thumbnail quality and still save a lot of bandwidth while being equivalent in quality to the jpeg thumbnail.

Which of these have actual widespread hardware decoding support?

Let's include Jpeg XL for discussion.

>>106502968
Why wouldn't image hosting services care about higher efficiency?

>server
higher efficiency = saving bandwidth = cheaper costs
>client
higher efficiency = saving bandwidth = faster downloads, especially on mobile,
as well as cheaper costs if you are on a mobile plan

>>106502859
>proceeds to post .png

>>106504822
1. I am talking about the thumbnail format, not the raw file itself
2. If i posted it as a jpeg, it would be recompressed therefore making the representation of the codecs innaccurate.

>>106504388
>Why wouldn't image hosting services care about higher efficiency?
idk, ask them.
everyone is fine with the current standard, no one wants webp or the other shit, nor is it practical since no website accepts these shit formats in the first place, so you're basically just wasting space even downloading them unless you want to manually save everything as a png or jpeg.

>>106505101
Who the fuck downloads thumbnails instead of the full image? Read OP's comment. THUMBNAILS, NOT THE RAW IMAGES! If you think you want to download a 150x150 preview image you are retarded

File: 1756978270914815.png (1.02 MB, 767x696)

1.02 MB PNG

>>106505158
no one cares nigga, png and jpeg are fine even as thumbnails.
webp and alt format trannies need to rope already instead of shilling their crap no one wants everywhere.
Imagine being such a failed format that image hosters are willing to pay a little bit extra just for png and jpeg.

>>106502859
I just encoded a random thumbnail from the catalog as an avif, only reduced size by 48%. Could set quality lower but then the colours get noticeably messed up. Still, ~50% is good savings. Not sure how much 4chan's bandwidth is serving thumbnails. Since most users have cache enabled, I'd imagine not very much.

>>106505185
>image hosters are willing to pay a little bit extra just for png and jpeg
no image hoster does this, and what does image codecs have to do with trannies, i have never seen a tranny say that they prefer these codecs. you are making this up in your head

>>106505332
do*