>WebP>JPEG>AVIF>no extension>PNG>JPG but you can only save a 300x300 thumbnail despite the pic supposedly being 1200x1200how did web design get this honestly bad to frustrate you this much when you try to save one simple stupid image? all i asked for was a simple JPG with no bullshit.
>>106866399Blame google
>>106866399>>JPG but you can only save a 300x300 thumbnail despite the pic supposedly being 1200x1200It's their way of telling you to stop using JPG like a third world negro.
Yuno my beloved
>>106866490>as he's posting on a website that only accepts JPG/PNG/GIF
>>106866588I never said this website didn't have Third World infrastructure.
>>106866399>WebPDefacto lossy standard across the entire internet aside from this shithole>JPEGObsolete, use WebP>AVIFWebP's main competitor.>no extension?>PNGObsolete, use lossless WebP>JPG but you can only save a 300x300 thumbnail despite the pic supposedly being 1200x1200Blame retarded web developers for this one. If you're talking about Google Images specifically that is due to a copyright lawsuit because Google was hosting copyright images, they now just redirect to the source which is often a broken jpeg thumbnail instead of the actual image you want.
>>106866733>Obsolete, use WebPI think he means where it has the extension spelled as JPEG instead of JPG.
>>106866399Hosting high-res images, especially popular ones, without showing ads is expensive. Modern image codecs and even modern JPG encoders have been created to attempt to make things better but they face problems in being adopted attributed to various factors not just the fact that the internet is maintained primarily by boomers who aren't actually that good with technology and just show up to work to collect a paycheck.Jpegli: backwards compatible with JPG, uses optimized huffman tables to eek out 20-30% better compression efficiency vs JPG encoders from the 90s, just like Webp. Niche encoder (for now), requires CLI knowledge.Webp: 20-30% better compression efficiency vs JPG. ~80% compatibility compared to JPG. Does not require CLI knowledge, can be used via GUI image editors/viewers. Also offers 20-30% better compression efficiency compared to PNG/GIF, making it the swiss army knife of image codecs.AVIF and JXL: 50-60% better compression efficiency vs JPG. The latter also offers 40-50% better compression efficiency vs PNG. Both have GUI implementations but very poor compatibility and take longer to encode vs webp.Modern web browsers using ad blockers have only worsened things as images now cost money to websites, not turn a profit.
YOU ONLY COMPLAIN ABOUT THAT STUFF BECAUSE 4CHINZ DOESN'T SUPPORT IT
>>106866733webp is fucking dogshit at lossy, quit shilling it, it's only useful for lossless and nothing else.siipo.la/blog/is-webp-really-better-than-jpeg
>>106866942see >>106866917What is true is that the lossy version of webp is obsolete if jpegli gains widespread adoption.
>>106866526if you even know what the OP character is you don't belong here
>>106866917>uses optimized huffman tables to eek out 20-30% better compression efficiency vs JPG encoders from the 90s, just like Webp. Niche encoder (for now), requires CLI knowledge....why are you ignoring the fact that mozjpeg exists? jpegli is only better than mozjpeg at high resolutions/high bpp, in 99% of cases it's pretty much identical and it doesn't require any cli knowledge, anyone can use squoosh.app>Webp: 20-30% better compression efficiency vs JPGvery rarely, and even if it did, not worth the tradeoff of using a 900 times more complex and less compatible codec, only 20% better efficiency than something from the late 80s is embarassingly bad.>Also offers 20-30% better compression efficiency compared to PNG/GIFyou're overselling webp for lossy and undersellng it for lossless, it's in most cases way more than a 30% efficiency gain over png, let alone gif.
>>106866979anime website, chuddie.
>>106866967>What is true is that the lossy version of webp is obsolete if jpegli gains widespread adoption.see >>106866986mozjpeg exists already and has widespread adoption already, retard.
>>106866399There's no inherent problem with new, superior file formats except this shithole doesn't support them.Remember when we used to laugh at itoddlers because they couldn't watch .webp-s? I remember, we're all like those itoddlers now, the world is leaving us behind.
>>106867025they're gay and retarded. Png is the best, the only exception is if you're a third worlder that can't afford storage.
>>106866987MS Paint has a hard wired JPG compression of about 20%. If re-saved in MS Paint, the image there shrinks by a small amount. I know the old-ass Windows XP Paint was like 70% compression and it really made images look like shit.
>>106866986>>106866994AFAIK, mozjpeg was a complete failure because it could not maintain proper backwards compatibility with JPG. Decoding would fail in older devices that expected a "normal" JPG. Jpegli fixed this.Mozjpeg was a creation of Mozilla afterall...
>>106867032>technology board>ranting about superior file formats
>>106867037>AFAIK, mozjpeg was a complete failure because it could not maintain proper backwards compatibility with JPG. Decoding would fail in older devices that expected a "normal" JPG. Jpegli fixed this.holy fucking shitI cannot fucking believe it's the same retard with this unproven claim once againwhy haven't you killed yourself yet
>>106867057I'm not ranting about png though
>>106866986>very rarelyI don't think you understand how averages work. Webp will outperform JPG, especially the encoders from the 90s by more than 50% in many anime images. Obviously it would be fucking stupid to claim that Webp achieves over 50% better compression efficiency over JPG just because it was able to compress anime tiddies better. Similarly claiming that it's only like 10% better than JPG because it had a hard time reproducing ISO 6400 noise is also incredibly fucking stupid.20-30% is the sensible average between these 2 extremes.
>>106867075>20-30% is the sensible average between these 2 extremes.fine...and that's still shit>not worth the tradeoff of using a 900 times more complex and less compatible codec, only 20% better efficiency than something from the late 80s is embarassingly bad.maybe learn how to read or something
>>106867062Please explain why jpegli is achieving more adoption than mozjpeg.JPGs created with mozjpeg LITERALLY will not decode AT ALL in older devices. Meanwhile JPGs created with jpeg will decode 100% just fine.
>>106867104>JPGs created with mozjpeg LITERALLY will not decode AT ALL in older devices. Meanwhile JPGs created with jpeg will decode 100% just fine.repeating something a hundred times without any proof whatsoever doesn't make it trueso prove it or kys once and for all, retard.
>>106867102Except you're full of shit because Webp is just a VP8 keyframe and modern CPUs can encode VP8 video at like 1000 frames per second now.>>106867127Go ahead and try it yourself. mozjpeg literally creates tranny JPGs. If it didn't then jpegli wouldn't exist.
>>106867104>Please explain why jpegli is achieving more adoption than mozjpeg.and btw what the fuck did you even mean by thisjpegli has 0 adoption, mozjpeg has for sure been used on the web much more than jpegli, so no clue what even is your point here...any data that shows jpegli having more adoption than mozjpeg? of course not, just like you have no data showing that "mozjpg doesn't produce standard complying jpeg files"what a dumbass you are
>>106867142>Except you're full of shit because Webp is just a VP8 keyframe and modern CPUs can encode VP8 video at like 1000 frames per second now....did I ever say that's not the case?I literally just said it's a way more complex codec, which is objectively true, the fact that vp8 still isn't computationally expensive doesn't change that fact.>Go ahead and try it yourself.been using mozjpeg for the past 10 years without a single issue>mozjpeg literally creates tranny JPGs.again: prove it or shut the fuck up>If it didn't then jpegli wouldn't exist....that makes no sense whatsoeverit's like saying "if aom-av1 didn't produce broken av1 videos svt-av1 wouldn't exist"jpegli exists as a better more efficient encoder meant for higher fidelity targets than what mozjpeg was designed for, in no way does its existance mean mozjpeg wasn't a jpeg encodernothing you ever say makes any fucking sense, but it's not bait either, you're just a massive colossal retard, it's insane.
Retards crashing out over image codecs will never not be funny.
>>106867143jpegli is bundled with libjxl, the thing used by millions already. Given how it's able to produce JPG images that DO NOT fail to decode on old hardware it's not just another JPG encoder you use once and then forget about forever (ie like mozjpeg).I don't get why you're making all this fuss for. Either way people should know that lossy Webp is only competitive against JPG encoders from the 90s (still sadly used today).
>>106867240still no proofstill repeating the same nonsensekys>it's not just another JPG encoder you use once and then forget about forever (ie like mozjpeg).you conveniently ignored the part where i've said i've been using mozjpeg for a fucking decade.>libjxl used by millions alreadymy fucking sides
>>106866399Avif won.
>>106867212All I'm saying is it's annoying to always have to copy pics into MS Paint and resave them as a JPG because they're in a bullshit image format.
>>106867483>ms paintsquoosh.app
>>106866399html defined jpeg rendering was always there
>>106867483it's not bullshit other than that 4chinz is too shitty to support them
Lets either pretend it's still 1998 or lets just go full retard - Web design philosophy since 1999
>>106867025Compatibility is a huge problem and so far the winner for that is webp and even then, barely because the whole design around webp is built opon 4:2:0 chroma sub sampling for images.Which JPG can do but it can also do 4:4:4 0 chroma sub sampling for things like video game screenshots/text/etc.
