File: file.jpg (246 KB, 1040x992)

246 KB JPG

>>109366610


>ODT (Libre office)
If you want to insert pictures into your ODTs you can have problems PNG and JPG work great for years webp was fucked and AVIF is still a problem.

And this gets infinitely more worse for JXL. You need to convert presumably all your pictures to JXL for god knows what reason and they now do not work with MP3 Tag requiring you waste time in converting them to use them in MP3 TAG.

And it is not like anyone will add JXL support a obscure and abandoned file format! If the devs did not add WebP or AVIF support. At least WebP or AVIF are spammed all over the internet these days!

There are other examples of programs who did not add support since basically everything needs to add support for this meme shit and a obscure meme shit like JXL is even worse.

>b-b-b- it can store the pixels perfectly or fucke them up LOL (I consider this a good thing)
Content preserving file formats like PNG should NEVER have the option to act like content damaging file formats (JPG) mixing them in 1 file format is simply wrong same is true for JXL meme shit.

Why do you care this much over a fucking image format. It's just an image format. I get that we should save bandwidth but you are getting emotional over this. If 4chan allowed webp for example it would save so much fucking bandwidth. If people used gzip and minifiers and learned how fucking webpack works or stopped using it there would be so much fucking bandwidth saved.

your music player cannot display cover.jxl from the same directory as music files?
mpv can.

but also, if you really want to embed the cover image inside your mp3, only jpg and png formats are supported, so you'll have to convert anything else. ffmpeg will let you do this.

cbr and cbz are useless. I downloaded 2 gb of comics in cbr with jpg inside and losslessly converted that to 1.6 gb of jxl files. loads just as fast as loose jpg files and reads comfortably in mpv.

>>109366610
OP butthurt

>>109366618
>I get that we should save bandwidth
You debunked yourself!

>it would save so much fucking bandwidth
NO! That is the last thing we should be doing we should destroy internet cable to reduce the band witch of the internet obviously!

>Nooo think of all these server farms and big corporate websites!
>think about FACEBOOK!

>>109366830
>cbr and cbz are useless.
No they are great and you can make lots of things into CBZ.

> reads comfortably in mpv.
YIKES!

I thought JXL was good.

>>109366867
you're not even benefitting from compressing already compressed images, why bother? just because a single file is somehow "more convenient" than a directory of images?

>> reads comfortably in mpv.
>YIKES!
yes, mpv can be configured to be a great image viewer.

>>109366881
I have done this before. But it's not really that good for ram usage if i recall. I'll bench that

File: 1757484361746672.png (736 KB, 1600x1600)

736 KB PNG

>>109366610
>you need to convert the picture to another format like PNG or JPG to upload them to 4chan.
no, I use neXT so webp and avif are automatically converted to png

File: assblasted.webm (366 KB, 720x604)

366 KB WEBM

holy assblasted OP
>>109365667

File: image_of_rss_savings.png (208 KB, 1814x664)

208 KB PNG

>>109366912
Here are the results.

>>109366989
100 MB of RAM is nothing on a PC you use a web browser on.

>>109366615
>webp was fucked
good

>>109367009
It's fucking wasteful. It compounds and it's how you end up with electron-tier shitware.There is no reason to use the RAM for that purpose. If you want to, fine, but it's wasteful and you're an idiot for doing it.

>>109367072
I don't know about you, but I'd rather pay 100 mb ram tax once and use comfortable mpv right now than spend who-knows-how-many hours optimizing it or use a worse, less configurable program to do roughly the same task.

>>109366944
Is this a picture of you fucking yourself over with JXL? JXL fagot?

Why did you not convert all your pictures and files to JXL already?
Why is this a wemb? And not a JLX?

>>109366610
didn't google literally kill JXL because it was retarded

>>109367327
no, google tried to kill jxl to try and promote webp and avif but in the end jxl got to pdf standard and other browsers and now there's a flag to enable it in chromium as well.

>>109367327
>didn't google literally kill JXL because it was retarded
YES.
No imagine needing to see the JXL fagot talking about JXL in every thread that criticizes new meme formats like WebP and AVIF.
This is why JXL FAG is a total retard. JXL is a dead format!

>didn't google literally kill JXL
I think it is because the JXL devs want everyone to pay them to use JXL and literally everyone did say
>LOL NO!
>WE use what we have already for free!
However I am to lazy to look that up. Not that any of that matters JXL is a dead file format.

And google made WebP and AVIF to save these pennies on every TB they serve.

>>109367374
Hello JXL fagot!
>and other browsers and now there's a flag to enable it in chromium as well.
And this is a bad thing. We do not need more new meme shit formats!

> jxl got to
You are delusional JXL fagot everything you post is not taken seriously.
>and other browsers
What other browser? There is literally 1 browser
Google chrome (and the whack reskins others made for it!) and firefox the googles payed team of devs to prevent google from getting a monopoly lawsuit!

>>109367435
educate yourself.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JPEG_XL#Industry_support_and_adoption

>>109367327
It was removed by one corrupt person from the webp team for provably false reasons. They wanted to abuse chrome's monopoly to push their own format instead, since it would've never seen adoption otherwise.

All the new formats are garbage, it's just corpos trying to save cents like a hobo picking up cigarette stumps

File: file.png (458 KB, 1782x795)

458 KB PNG

>>109367474
>educate yourself.
Fun fact the wikipedia link that says it is open links to this schizo slide show where the conclusion is that JXL is trash!
FUCKEN LOL.

The rest of the article reads like cope by some retarded JXL shill.
We do not need JXL. That is the last thing we ever need. At this point facebook and youtube can compress their webP and AVIFS harder. NOT MORE MEME SHIT!

I am so glad that 4chan does not support WebP and AVIF and I hope 4chan never suports JXL!

retarded daiz thread

>>109367569
if you haven't noticed, jpeg xr and jpeg xt in your screenshot are not jpeg xl (jxl).

>>109367569
>We do not need JXL
>We
lmao
speak for yourself retard

png or death

>>109367725
png and death!

>>109366610
>And it is not like anyone will add JXL support a obscure and abandoned file format! If the devs did not add WebP or AVIF support. At least WebP or AVIF are spammed all over the internet these days!

I added support for JXL for my own projects a year ago and don't plan to add support for WebP or AVIF, because no user ever requested it. It's just the better and more futureproof format imo.

>>109367944
>for my own projects a
And that is?
Name of project?

>I added
Are you a dev for libre office or MP3 TAG? If no why are you even talking to me?

File: 1670444248843127.png (169 KB, 473x389)

169 KB PNG

>>109366610
webp is trash thoughbeight. I'll take JXL over it.

webp's generational loss, combined with its 8-bit YUV 4:2:0 limit make it a non-starter, it offers no benefits outside of reducing bandwidth costs for google and other cloud providers.

File: out.webm (2.2 MB, 873x900)

2.2 MB WEBM

>>109368172
That's a retarded oversimplificaiton. Despite those limits Webp can actually compete with modern image codecs like JXL in certain content. Theoretically the 4:2:0 limit should be a serious problem but -sharp_yuv mitigates this somewhat so the limitation is no longer as harmful.

File: file.png (92 KB, 522x275)

92 KB PNG

>>109368545
it's still just a translation layer, resulting in a loss of detail. webp is just single frame vp9 with the same limitations, abandonware. google knows this which is why they are pushing av1 hard.

>>109366610
Thanks Daiz, buy an ad.

File: 35178_8476106a.png (105 KB, 1105x537)

105 KB PNG

>>109368545
lol.

File: 1764137653902.png (1.44 MB, 1280x2268)

1.44 MB PNG

>>109368661
>>109368711
Right, it only somewhat mitigates it. However it seems to be enough to compete with JXL in certain content. Like think about it for a moment, JXL has all these fancy spatial prediction tools that IN THEORY should be CRUSHING webp by a sizable 20-30% across the board.

We don't see that though. If you do the JXL shill thing where you ONLY test a DSLR raw of tree bark, you can lie to everyone and pretend that JXL is the next sliced bread. The reality however will resurface every now and then.

>>109368841
anime nerds haven't got to tuning jxl yet. jxl website tells you that it is currently tuned for photographic images.

File: otter.png (895 KB, 600x662)

895 KB PNG

>>109369269
So until that day comes it's fair to say that JXL is still a work in progress image codec and that usage of Webp today still makes sense right now, again for certain content. Honestly it pisses me off how black and white most people want the world to be.

It's like first cousin marriage being outlawed because the west claims it will destroy humanity while their birthrates keeps going down and migrants replace them.

>>109369347
it's not like the format is going to change. but the encoder is only going to get better.

we are still getting better jpeg encoders 30 fuggin years after the format got invented.

>>109369393
It also applies to Webp as well. I think in the end it's all a balancing act between compression and backwards compatibility. Like how far are you willing to go to keep filesize down? Which is why jpegli exists at all because nothing can beat that for backward compatibility.

https://halide.cx/iris/

>>109369347
why not just use avif? why are you shilling for webp 8bit abandonware in 2026?

File: test.png (1020 KB, 1392x1136)

1020 KB PNG

>>109369665
Backwards compatibility like I mentioned in the post above you. You blind yourself by thinking compressmaxing is all that matters.

>>109369721
for what purpose, just hardware acceleration? we're basically at the edge of passing everything through vk-renderer to sort that shit out anyway

jxl landed as a toggle in settings in firefox today
works quite well

File: popular image codecs compared.png (127 KB, 1613x848)

127 KB PNG

>>109369744
Reaches more people I suppose. Again jpegli exists if you want close to 100% backwards compatibility, JPG images encoded with jpegli are as universal as salt and pepper.
AVIF seems to give you the best possible overall compression when you factor in both photographic and non-photographic images together.
But it sacrifices backwards compatibility to do so. If you can't understand this then I'm sorry but I can't help you, I'm not a tard wrangler.

>>109369875
why is backward compatibility important when everybody has a browser that auto updates to the latest version that supports the new formats anyway? im done talking with your windows fag ass.

>>109369903
Because they don't. Unless you want to go to everyone's home, put a shotgun to their heads, and force them to download your stinking chromeshit against their will. Problem is you'd have to do this in China, Africa, Japan, and so on and so on.

OP is pretty schizo even compared to polniggers, it’s impressive

>>109369347
>usage of Webp today still makes sense right now, again for certain content
sure, but what benefit is there of dealing with six different file formats? I just smosh everything except .dng into jxl and it seems to work fine. The only downside is that it lacks is decent animation support, and the software support is mediocre if growing
In contrast idk why I’d ever pick webp over jxl. On 4chin I just paste the file and it auto converts to png or jpg because who tf cares about saving 500kb by converting to webp. I guess there is some minor utility of using webp to shave off a few kb if you’re a webnigger, but in an age where people shit 5mb of tracking scripts down your throat i dont think it makes a big difference
I appreciate your incest analogy

File: 1780629167505.png (904 KB, 2560x720)

904 KB PNG

>>109370063
They all sacrifice some amount of backwards compatibility, even Webp which I advocate for will fail a small subset of browsers and will not display on all image viewers/editors. It would be cool if we could uproot every single image format and switch over to JXL because I'll give it the benefit of the doubt and assume it will defeat Webp with images like picrel. But we can't because we as humanity are unpredictable, picky, sentimental, ignorant, or don't update shit (see recent 4chan hack).

I think it's foolish to imagine that we'll get rid of multiple image formats anytime soon where there's many many different OS's, Web browsers, image viewers/editors, and so on and so on. We haven't even started the neural image codec wars yet...

File: 1780408866536.png (1018 KB, 1280x720)

1018 KB PNG

picrel source for test above for anyone curious.

Once I learned jxl was worse for anime I stopped caring about it

>>109370186
>jxl was worse for anime
For now.

delicious SS2/pixdaiz melty
it's funny he dropped his tripcodes when it's his stylometry and macros that are so easily distinguishable from the other codec autists

File: Image1 (4).png (67 KB, 1475x701)

67 KB PNG

>>109371847
What does this even have to do with the thread topic that JXL is a stupid fucking image format nobody asked for? I don't care who your dumb eceleb is but why can't we just use a better JPG compressor like jpegli and call it a day?

Why do we have like 10 different versions of JPG anyway? There's JPG-XR, JPG 2000, JPG-XS, JPG-LS, JPG-XT JPG-AI...
Why couldn't these monkeys just name it JPG 2, JPG 3, JPG 4????

>>109368027
A FROG POSTER!
>JXL
look JXL shill JXL is worse in every way to webp at least webp is sported in most places literally nothing supports JXL
>Ah yes I wail fanboy over develop vaporware posts of adding support for JXL
Why are you like this JXL shill?

File: 1767583450097217.png (1.47 MB, 2056x2560)

1.47 MB PNG

>>109373505
Still sticking with JXL, thanks.

File: disaster-girl-test-image.png (1.1 MB, 1024x768)

1.1 MB PNG

>>109374888
Wasted trips, you really should have posted a picture of tree bark instead. JXL sucks donkey dick compared to webp in anime content as shown in this thread.

gigabrain idea: make jpeg images using jpegli, losslessly store in jxl for smallest size, instantly and losslessly convert back to jpeg for uploads.

File: 1780677365965864.jpg (194 KB, 1493x1600)

194 KB JPG

>>109375318
>in anime content
Who gives even the most marginal of fucks?

File: 4MB.jpg (3.94 MB, 5842x9291)

3.94 MB JPG

>>109375443
Yes yes, Anime content on the ANIME WEBSITE you're currently on is something nobody gives a fuck about...

File: laughter.gif (3.29 MB, 350x263)

3.29 MB GIF

>>109375616
>posts a jpg in their whiteknighting of webp

yea I’ll just keep using jxl
>webm
obsolete
>telavif
no
>jpg, png
ol reliable, but it’s 2026 unc

I would like to try out jxl, but it has far too many dependencies.

File: 1781330875099661.png (255 KB, 460x640)

255 KB PNG

>>109376291
That's not even the worst part, IMHO I think JXL fucked up by focusing on photographic images too hard. It's like the saying goes, "Jack of all trades, master of none." which describe Webp perfectly.
Like it's cool that JXL can preserve a DSLR image of tree bark really really well but then it can't significantly outperform Webp in non-photographic images as shown in >>109369875

Had JXL sacrificed some of those photographic image compression gains in favor of better non-photographic image compression, it honestly would have gotten more support IMHO.

>>109376291
too many dependencies? really?
brotli
googletest
highway
sjpeg
skcms
zlib
libpng
libjpeg-turbo

File: file.png (85 KB, 319x234)

85 KB PNG

>>109374888
he says this while posting a PNG!
Please JXL shill continue this conversation by only posting JXLs!

>nooo it is not supported here!
Now you see the problem!

>>109376291
>jxl
>it has far too many dependencies
such as having a display connected to your computer?

>>109369875
>>109376394
>That's not even the worst part, IMHO I think JXL fucked up by focusing on photographic images too hard. It's like the saying goes, "Jack of all trades, master of none."
You have a point however it is literally after 2007 there is zero reason to not use PNG for everything except if the picture originally was generated as JPG.

>Muh GBs
Buy yourself a 2 TB HDD.

>>109376467
might as well use bmp then you dumb nigger

>>109376498
>might as well use bmp
COPE.
PNG is the one used on the 2001 Internet. Grow up now!

>>109366610
tl;dr
jxl rules
die daiz

>>109376906
isn't he the avif simp? op seems to seethe at everything released post 2000

>webp
no
>jpg and png
time for an upgrade
>heic
shit encoding, lots of incompatibilities and needs hardware decoding to work nicely; avoid unless you’re all in on apple stack
>avif
it’s okay but very decode hungry, which makes it impractical for large image folders. it’s usable tho
>jxl
it just works, and allows converting existing .jpg instead of having to reencode with avif
>but you could just keep jpg as is
or i could go with jxl, especially now after google got forced to add support

tldr there just isn’t a reason to use anything except jxl unless you have some ancient software you love to death and it doesn’t support it

File: 1784480447474.webm (124 KB, 1448x1086)

124 KB WEBM

>>109377086
>>avif
>it’s okay but very decode hungry, which makes it impractical for large image folders. it’s usable tho
The funny thing about AVIF is that at its core it's essentially just a single AV1 video keyframe so it can be fully decoded by like 99% of all AV1 hardware decoding ASIC as long as it doesn't exceed baseline AV1 video specifications.
You can extend this further by cutting up higher resolution images into grids but there is a possible downside of boundary artifacts. Otherwise raw software decoded AVIF images can be like 4,000 megapixels if desired.

>The AVIF Baseline Profile (which uses AV1 Level 5.1) limits a single coded image item to a maximum of 8,912,896 pixels (approximately 8.9 megapixels, or roughly a 4K resolution cap of 8192×4352).

You can actually preview what this might be like with this VP9 webm I included. 99% chance you probably have a VP9 hardware decoding ASIC on the device you're using. If so you won't see a CPU spike at all as the ASIC will do all the heavy lifting.

Stream #0:0: Video: vp9 (Profile 0), yuv420p(tv, progressive), 1448x1086, SAR 1:1 DAR 4:3, 6 fps, 6 tbr, 1k tbn

https://desuarchive.org/g/thread/109315619

>>109377242
>so it can be fully decoded by like 99% of all AV1 hardware decoding ASIC as long as it doesn't exceed baseline AV1 video specifications.
idk about that but my 7800x3d / 4070ti desktop doesn't use hardware decoding on either linux or win10 when dealing with avif, nor does my macbook pro m4 which also has av1 hardware decoding
so it just working (tm) seems largely theoretical, likely constrained to some dumbass mvp like 4-2-0 8bit or whatever, at which point you might as well continue using old shit

to be fair, jxl also uses software decoding but it's noticeably zippier than avif which makes significant difference when you have 2000 images in a folder and are trying to find a specific one that you don't know the name of

File: pixDAIZ is here.webm (94 KB, 360x270)

94 KB WEBM

>>109376906
/thread

File: av1 baseline.png (29 KB, 959x409)

29 KB PNG

>>109377286
>dumbass mvp like 4-2-0 8bit or whatever, at which point you might as well continue using old shit
You're right, it must also be 4:2:0 but 10-bit is supported so at least color banding won't be a problem.

However I have also noticed this in the libavif documentation, I'm not sure how much it will help alleviate the 4:2:0 limitation though.

>--sharpyuv : Use sharp RGB to YUV420 conversion (if supported). Ignored for y4m or if output is not 420.

https://github.com/AOMediaCodec/libavif/blob/main/doc/avifenc.1.md

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AV1

>Unironically lets the JXL shill live rent free in his head

>>109376424
>jxl
>libpng dependency
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA FUCK ME
lmao

>>109378864
you can be even funnier, compile jxl without libpng and then be unable to convert png to jxl with cjxl.

>>109376462
dependency on other libraries.

>>109376424
Yes, too many.

File: file.png (193 KB, 359x557)

193 KB PNG

>converted practically all the images I had to .jxl in 2023, running on pure hopium that it will get adopted eventually
>it ended up being true

>>109380980

> it ended up being true

not on 4chan

File: HOIYMOZa4AAP7Ri.jpg (956 KB, 1536x1536)

956 KB JPG

in current day network bandwidth is far more than what the average user would saturate, storage is extremely cheap, and network speeds are fast. lossy compression of images should be banned and there should be a global mandate that only allows storing and distributing of images in png format since it is both lossless and has support in pretty much all software over the last 30 years that would require image i/o. unfortunately were not at this point for video yet but that too should be required to be lossless some time in the future

>>109381786
this is a good argument for why jxl will probably be the last image format you'll need.

>>109381786
yeah but you can't IP broadcast across an entire continent so saving bandwidth still makes sense from the perspective of CDNs

>>109366610
Rent free.

>>109367327
they did it because they wanted to push webp

File: Ea287AUXsAAfQ7Y.jpg (49 KB, 750x563)

49 KB JPG

>>109381786
>distributing of images in png format since it is both lossles

LOL, LMAO eve

Everyone laugh at this utter fucking imbecile.

https://github.com/richgel999/rdopng
https://github.com/richgel999/rdopng
https://github.com/richgel999/rdopng
https://github.com/richgel999/rdopng

>>109386123
And why do you suspect they did that?

Could it have something to do with
>>109368545
>>109368841
>>109369875
>>109370166

Is it really that crazy that maybe Google isn't too crazy about adopting an imaege format still stuck in BETA development?

Like when is libjxl v 1.0.0 coming out????
2040?

File: 1446666989078.jpg (51 KB, 381x394)

51 KB JPG

>>109367313
Holy moly! What a melty...