Fastest and easiest NON-WEBSITE way for a retard to convert shitloads of JPEGs to lossless JXL? Even better if I can convert other formats with the same program. I know GIMP can export JXLs but doing it that way for every single image I want to convert one at a time would take forever and a half.
Converseen.Batch image resize/formatting tool.Make sure your imagemagick package has the JXL format installed.
>>4527584>imagemagickDon't like command line programs, I actually did find a GUI called FotoKilof but couldn't figure out how to make it export JXL>ConverseenPerfect, love it, but unless I'm missing something it does JXL in lossy mode with no export settings, unless JXL is infinitely better than I thought and squeezing a 7.59 MB PNG down to 1.37 MB completely losslessly is considered normal? That's basically black magic if that's real as far as I'm concerned, I'll update GIMP tomorrow and run the same test image through it to sanity check that. Going to get some sleep for now.
>>4527601Fuuuuuuuucck I thought it was lossless but I haven't used JXL for more than a few tests, years ago. The file size seems about right though, since PNG on photos is turd-tier compression while JXL is genuinely effective. Don't worry about the ImageMagick shit unless Converseen doesn't have JXL support by default (which is the case with standard Debian iirc). If it's in Converseen then then you're set. If not just gotta google the two CMD line arguments to paste in.
>>4527575You can batch edit with Gimp, retard
>>4527575Nobody mentioned that it's completely pointless to convert from jpg to jpgxl? That not what you actually plan to do right OP?
>>4527575If youre comfortable with a command line you could use a list of files with ImageMagick.And if youre not comfortable you could ask an AI to help format the command
>>4527609I believe people should have the tools available for them to explore their possibilities.JPEG to JXL is like a 15-25% file size reduction. If all he wants to do is save local drive space then it's not a terrible idea.Web support is, as always, 10 years behind and nothing will accept JXL.
>>4527636pictures don't really take that much space in the grand scheme of things
>>4527637>10.33MB file averageNot bad, actually made me check my count and while it's far fewer files it's still 300GB~. Anon might just be poor or a protocol autist. Fits the board quite well now that I think about it; OP obsessing over the minute, almost irrelevant specs while avoiding basic stuff like:>4527601>squeezing a 7.59 MB PNG down to 1.37 MB... storing photos as PNG and fundementally misunderstanding compression.
>>4527602Yeah converting to lossless JXL via GIMP resulted in a 4.6 MB file, so Converseen seems to be lossy-only. More specifically it's using "default" settings which are compression/maxerror=1, effort/speed=7 - the filesize matches exactly. Apparently compression=1 is "visually lossless" which is interesting, but I'm not sure if that has the same data integrity as being actually lossless. I'm on Windows btw not Linux.>>4527603>RetardDuh.>You can batch edit with GimpI had no idea. Needs a plugin called Batcher (for modern GIMP, old GIMP used BIMP instead which was what I tried first before realising it wasn't being maintained anymore, whoops), but this seems to work nicely.>>4527609>Nobody mentioned that it's completely pointless to convert from jpg to jpgxl?No, I was told the opposite, supposedly you can losslessly convert any JPEG to JPEG XL and get a smaller file, however I may have misinterpreted this as making the file itself lossless rather than just not losing anything in the conversion, as I tested converting a JPEG to lossless JXL in GIMP and the resulting file was about twice the size, though still smaller than a PNG so not necessarily a bad outcome if so.>>4527636I'm a believer, I think Apple supports JXL natively now, and both Firefox and Chrome have "experimental" support, whatever that means. You can turn it on manually pretty easily in Firefox via about:config so of course I did exactly that as soon as I found out. Not sure what Linux's status on JXL support is.>>4527641>Anon might just be poorThe opposite actually, I've got plenty of space and was prepared to convert everything to PNG since I prefer lossless formats, JXL just has better compression. And I've been wanting to use it ever since I found out about it back in 2023.>or a protocol autistGuilty as charged.
>>4527681 (Me)I found a different tool called XL Converter which can do lossless JPEG transcoding explicitly and unambiguously, which is good since now I have a definite example to work with and compare against. My test image was 3.13 MB, lossless transcoding to JXL reduced it to 2.59 MB, however exporting as lossless JXL from GIMP increased it to 6.73 MB, so I guess "lossless" in the context of "transcoding" isn't the same as the file format itself being lossless like I originally thought. I surely knew this at some point in the past but forgot. Exporting as lossless PNG resulted in an 8.91 MB file so it's still an improvement at least. Interestingly, loading the transcoded JXL into GIMP and then exporting it as a lossless JXL actually results in a BIGGER file size than exporting the original JPEG as a lossless JXL (7.73 MB vs 6.73 MB). Bizarre.
>>4527681>losslessly convert any JPEG to JPEG XL and get a smaller fileJPG is already lossy. You are just preserving (and adding) loss in another format. If you wanted a smaller file, you could export your RAW (lossless) yo JXL, but no one uses JXL, so it's not a great idea. For saving space, webp is the go-to option.
>>4527575bash script on linux
