Wait... Is it actually good now?
>>108660380Yes but /g/ thinks that we should root for Jpeg XL because it's supposed to be LE SUPERHERO who woll destroy Google or autistic shit like that and there's also a spammer here who will go blind with fury if you're not treating AVIF with hatred.Anyway tons of improvements have occurred over the last several years. Mainly that it's not slow as balls to encode images with it, speed 6 seems to take a few seconds on 10 year old desktop CPUs and under 1 second on modern ones so even poorfags can benefit now and not just the ultra wealthy. Webp/JPG is still unsurprisingly still faster but the gap keeps closing.One of the old weaknesses used to be good compression at 0.1-0.5 BPP but shit compression at 0.6-1.0 BPP, that's been fixed, which now makes it competitive with Jpeg XL if you're a camerafag who wants to preserve 99.99% of tree bark detail and camera noise WITHOUT resorting to the use of synthetic grain (would achieve even better compression).The only thing really left for Jpeg XL seems to be the really really really high quality bracket where instead of a visually lossless side by side comparison, you do pixel peeping. It can encode images significantly faster than AVIF there. Realistically 99% of the web isn't going to give a fuck about this when the goal is to reduce image filesize by as much as most people will tolerate.
>>108662173>only thing really left for Jpeg XL seems to be the really really really high quality bracketWhich is the only thing that matters, because why would you want lower quality as technology progresses?Things are supposed to get better, rather than worse. We should use better technology to provide better quality.Even normies hate the google slop and rant about the "shitty youtube compression". Guess what that shitty youtube compression is?Now have fun spamming even more and wasting even more of your life shilling for a mega corpo, you fingolian subhuman.
>>108662173>avif shill post>conveniently leaves out the tiny little fact that jxl can re-compress existing jpegs (99% of the pictures that have already been shot) losslessly for a free 20% storage/bandwidth reduction, and the original jpeg can be reconstructed for applications that don't support jxl.every fucking time.if jxl doesn't work out, I can have all of my original jpegs back, if avif doesn't work out, all your pics are now locked into some shitty forgotten jewish format and your only option for no further generational loss is to convert them to a lossless format which will take up 50x the storage space and completely void the entire point.
>>108662324No, that's the only thing you personally think that matters. It's not just that smaller image filesizes will reduce website hosting bills but people will also see things load faster. In your perfect autismo land world everyone is walking around with 1 Gbps mobile internet that never throttles and websites are all controlled by kind hearted millionaires who pay for 1Tbps backhauls out of their own pockets.>>108662324This is honestly more of a minor feature. Like it's good tech-wise, 10-20% smaller isn't what most websites want though, they want 60-80% smaller as long as users don't complain too much. That's why many websites skipped Webp adoption and went straight to AVIF.
>>108660380>Not really losslessI don't care about it
>>108660380>Is it actually good now?pssssh, av if
