your response?
>>106957900hmm yes let me take a lossy screenshot of the same image 524 times
as longtime jpeg fanboy it's truly depressing how nobody likes this format anymore. what's not to like? this sort of stuff adds character, but others look down on it as a flaw. everything doesn't need to be perfect you know. even superman has a weakness
>>106957985had a guy in the office that sends me a jpg and ask me to debug things that happened on png as source. fuck that guy
I hate google so much it should have been jxl kill monopolies behead monopolies roundhouse kick monopolies dump feces into chromium’s food
>>106957900did the camera output avif?the camera did not output avif.did the camera output jxl?the camera did not output jxl.did the camera output webp?the camera did not output webp.did the camera output jpeg?
>>106958080>camera
>>106957900Now show us PNG.
>>106957900JPEG just weks
>>106959174can't even make your text lossless, amazing
>>106959179kek
>>106957900certifiable retardation.no question.no debate.no rebuttal.fucking idiots rely on this strawman argument when there's no sane reason whatsoever to regenerate an image hundreds of times.>but look at what will happen if you do!!1!
>>106957900that's great but webp, jxl and avif aren't used in real life
>>106957912>>106959197>has never seen a heavily jpegged image in the wild beforeyou can't fool us
>>106959197Almost all of the most popular websites and services - including 4cuckolds - re-encode all uploaded images for bandwidth-optimisation. Therefore, every time a user shares a saved image, it's going to keep further degrading in quality as more guys downstream of him disseminate it.
>>106957900>webp>smallest file size>quality worse than jxl and avifgee I wonder
>>106959313that's trivial.some websites do direct; others re-encode/transcode media.i would agree 100% for a/v streams - for websites where this is moreso applicable.i get websites will «strip» metadata most of the time, but reencoding is a countermeasure to trash embedded data.is it a standard operating procedure?hard to say. depends on the host.regardless, there's no sensible/sound reason/scenario for something to be washed & trashed 100+ times.
>>106959179it's loseless because jpeg = jpg
>>106957900Use case for 524 generations?
>>106959313Mind you, this also means that your choice of filetype is increasingly irrelevant on most social media: they'll re-encode it to .WEBP even if you upload a .PNG, and turn your .GIF into .WEBM.>>106960210deep frying gives a nice crust and traps the juices
>>106958080The camera did not output jpg you pseud retard
>>106957900Just make an AI filter that restores the original image.
