Is there a more annoying image format?

Is there a more annoying image format?

Stratton Oakmont Wolf of Wall Street Shirt $21.68

A Conspiracy Theorist Is Talking Shirt $21.68

Stratton Oakmont Wolf of Wall Street Shirt $21.68

  1. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Annoying why, anon? Be specific.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >websites use WebP
      >browsers show it just fine
      >download WebP file
      >can't view it
      >can't edit it
      >can't upload it to the same website you downloaded it from

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Install Irfanview like most people and if you are on Linux there are other options you can use.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >ffmpeg -i image.webp image.png
        Fixed.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      It's a web slop format.

      Simple as.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      it looks bad. there is always something shiny and extra-flat about webp images.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Both Webpoo and AV-IF-IT-WORKED are trash.

      it converts jpg and png to other webp, it has no support on programs like MSpaint, the only use for webp is on mobile sites where people care about wasting their data so each KB matters, no matter the cost

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Almost nowhere supports it.

  2. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    jpeg xl and you KNOW this israelite format is going to get shilled in this thread.

    >no browser support (other than the gay browser)
    >unsolved patent dispute with microsoft
    >poor compression efficiency with non-photographic images
    >horrendously dogdhit compression for animation (ie GIF replacement)
    And so on and so.

    At least webp has browser support but ee really should be moving onto AVIF since it supports 10-bit and HDR.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      baldy

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      This. I usually don't give a shit about image formats and just use what works but these jxl shills are so annoying I hope their stupid format just dies already.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      JPEG XL is the only Aryan format

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Lookup the creator, he's the same israelite grifter behind FLIF.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Literally made by israelites

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >WE WUZ IRANIANS
        schizo and I don't mean it as a buzzword as IQfy does

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Probably not schizo, just ignorant and dumb of the world.

          Speaking of, Aryan man singing in 6MB.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            The guy in the middle is Arthur de Gobineau, the French ambassador to Iran some centuries ago. He slept outside some Old Iranian ruins, refused to leave when a sand storm came in, and believed the Achaemenid kings were Nordic. His paranoid ramblings heavily influenced Europe. He wasn't uneducated because he studied Roman and Greek sources which contradict his imagination about Old Iran. That is the definition of insanity.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            For sure the Aryanists were loonies, but most neo-Nazis who parrot Hitler et al are simply smoothbrained tribalists who would be the first to go under the very own regime they praise.

  3. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    this format literally ruined google images.
    i never use it for images

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      The piece of shit never got any hardware acceleration like jpeg did so the fricktards devs can't easily implement it in their software.

      AVIF is supposed to change that.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >omg including one library is SO hard

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          It really reallly is for 99℅ of devs. That 1% is going to be concerned with battery life/performance especially on low end devices.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            on android, it should be as easy as
            if (isPowerSaveMode()) {
            // warn zoomer that webp is le wasteful
            }

            this species is doomed

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >hardware acceleration schizo
        I never saw your explanation of how hardware acceleration makes software easier. You know that people just use libraries for things, they don't need to implement everything from scratch, right?

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          NTA but hardware acceleration means that things get support at the OS level and pretty much guarantees that the image/video output will work across all kinds of software because it's restricted to to a specific profile/level. More importantly it's fast so you don't have to worry about users with chinkshit phones crying about performance or worse, battery life.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >hardware acceleration means that things get support at the OS level
            those two have nothing to do with one another
            >pretty much guarantees that the image/video output will work across all kinds of software because it's restricted to to a specific profile/level
            what?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Look satan, enforcing keyframes every 100 seconds and jacking up the b-frame could to 99, and 12-bit encoding is cool and all but it causes playback issues. When you hardware encode something you know that it will ALSO hardware decode just fine because it won't do those things. Compression won't be as good but you know that it just werks (tm) on anything that has hardware acceleration for that codec.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >he's unironically suggesting preferring hardware encoding over software even when you can afford the longer encode time
            lmao
            you aren't even trying any more

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            If you want to guarantee compatability you have to hardware encode.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            that's also incorrect btw

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I'm asking about the narrow claim that hardware decoding is easier, not whether it improves performance or not. Also, you seem to be describing video formats, even though this is a thread for image formats.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            that's also incorrect btw

            >MUST have at least 1 hardware image decoder supporting AVIF Baseline Profile.

            https://source.android.com/docs/compatibility/14/android-14-cdd

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            you still aren't answering my question, and you already admitted to being a different anon, so I'm going to assume you have no clue, and that the claim is as moronic as it seems. Thanks for wasting my time.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            see

            Look satan, enforcing keyframes every 100 seconds and jacking up the b-frame could to 99, and 12-bit encoding is cool and all but it causes playback issues. When you hardware encode something you know that it will ALSO hardware decode just fine because it won't do those things. Compression won't be as good but you know that it just werks (tm) on anything that has hardware acceleration for that codec.

            There's a reason why A14 specs BASELINE profile AVIF hardware decode because surprise surprise that's what most hardware AV1 encoders are capable of.

            AV1 and AVIF are related to each other, look it up. It's a 100+ IQ innovatioin IMHO. No specialized ASICs required, just use the video hw encoder to encode images LOL.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >use the video hw encoder to encode images
            gets outperformed by jpeg

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            NOPE. In my subjective testing:
            A) Preset 0 AOM is ~90% more efficient than JPG

            B) Preset 6 AOM is ~70% more efficient than JPG

            Preset ~10 which is what an AV1 encoder is expected to achieve would still probably reduce file size by 50%.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            using jpeg with jpegli encoder/decoder is higher quality, faster, easier to implement, safer, cheaper and more power-efficient than hardware encoding avif

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            This. A format from the 90s beats Avif

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >source: my butthole
            Show 4K images under 100KB with jpeg.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >race to the bottom

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            ah yes let's continue deceiving people by misinterpreting basic docs
            see

            [...]

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          He's never explained anything he said because he's only here to spam buzzwords and try to groom newbies into supporting AVIF.

          The reason he spams that AVIF is hated by israelites is because newbies occupy over 90% of IQfy, most of them are /misc/tards and they'll believe anything getting spammed if you also say their boogeyman hates it.

          Daiz learned about this weird strategy years ago when he saw how newbies started to type like morons because phoneposters, mods and feds were spamming in threads that reddit invented paragraps.

          https://desuarchive.org/_/search/text/reddit%20spacing%20/username/daiz/

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >open image in new tab
      >is labeled in the address bar as being in jpg/png/etc format
      >save image
      >it's a webp
      >have to either screenshot the image using the print screen key or my browser's screenshot tool, or convert the file using a website or some software so I can actually upload it somewhere if I choose to do so
      Yeah, it's a fricking pain in the ass. There is nothing wrong with using PNGs or JPGs.
      WebP is functionally pointless. Oh, lossless compression? Who gives a frick, get a larger drive.

      >websites use WebP
      >browsers show it just fine
      >download WebP file
      >can't view it
      >can't edit it
      >can't upload it to the same website you downloaded it from

      >right click image
      >save as jpeg/png/gif
      your welcome, google images is usable now

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Doesn't matter, the source is already fricked

  4. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >useless timewasting question

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >useless time-wasting post
      >useless time-wasting anon
      >not b***hing about a certain worthless, time-wasting image format

  5. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >open image in new tab
    >is labeled in the address bar as being in jpg/png/etc format
    >save image
    >it's a webp
    >have to either screenshot the image using the print screen key or my browser's screenshot tool, or convert the file using a website or some software so I can actually upload it somewhere if I choose to do so
    Yeah, it's a fricking pain in the ass. There is nothing wrong with using PNGs or JPGs.
    WebP is functionally pointless. Oh, lossless compression? Who gives a frick, get a larger drive.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      CDN providers should stop abusing the url filetype like that, especially when serving different formats based of user agent capabilities
      the only exception to that is urls like /imgproxy.php?src=/images/blablabla.jpg&fmt=lossy, but because everyone these days hates query parameters even on urls that nobody normally sees that becomes /imgproxy/fmt-lossy/blablabla.jpg

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      > Oh, lossless compression? Who gives a frick, get a larger drive.

      You write this on IQfy where the posted images are still limited by the same small number of megabytes even if you and even I and then everyone gets a larger drive.

      IQfy would definitely benefit from WebP support.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        WebP has been completely deprecated by both JPEG XL and ~~*Avif*~~ and for lossy compression even legacy JPEG (with jpegli encoder). What a feat.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          > WebP has been completely deprecated by both JPEG XL and ~~*Avif*~~

          Not true.

          AVIF's lossless compression of 24-bit pixels is an abomination and even lossless JPEG XL can also struggle and lose against screenshots of ClearType texts with minor patches of small graphics such as avatars.

          An example is attached.

          > and for lossy compression even legacy JPEG (with jpegli encoder)

          Not true for the strong compression (less than a bit per an average pixel).

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          AVIF is garbage for lossless compression, looks worse at the same or bigger size thresholds than other formats. JXL is usable but not as good. JXL is a very middle of the ground balanced standard overall, that's why i prefer it. On penny pinching scenarios, AVIF has better compression at an acceptable image quality, but for general usage JXL just looks nicer. Bonus because you can use losslessly serve JPGs for legacy clients, something AVIF can't.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I don't think the internet cares about "muh lossless!" as much as high quality 4K images under 100KB.

            See

            Just so everyone can have a good reference point of what AVIF is capable of here is a 4K image under 100 KB. Notice how it lacks the blockly artefacts found in jpeg/jpeg-xl. Hardware accelerated AV1 would bump the file size to around 400 KB but that's still MILES better than the 1 MB (or higher if not mozjpeg/jpegli) jpeg file size.

            https://files.catbox.moe/ycknht.avif

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            AVIF is garbage for lossless compression, looks worse at the same or bigger size thresholds than other formats. JXL is usable but not as good. JXL is a very middle of the ground balanced standard overall, that's why i prefer it. On penny pinching scenarios, AVIF has better compression at an acceptable image quality, but for general usage JXL just looks nicer. Bonus because you can use losslessly serve JPGs for legacy clients, something AVIF can't.

            Why are you replying to your own posts, Daiz?

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Nobody gives a shit about lossless, the internet is filled to the brim with lossy PNGs.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            You've been saying this and that you'll rape every Booru site with re-encoded lossy pixelated AVIF when you started your anti-JXL crusade after Google killed JXL for AVIF. So why haven't you done it?

            It's almost as if you're a shill, Daiz.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >AVIF is garbage for lossless compression, looks worse at the same or bigger size thresholds than other formats
            >AVIF has better compression at an acceptable image quality

            Do you really not know what lossy and lossless means despite being a self proclaimed encode expert or are you making shit up as usual to groom newbies?

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Keeping lossless data is important if you wanna edit the image later, and AVIF fails to do this remarkably better than WEBP or even PNG do, is shit at it in fact. If you're willing to use lossy compression AVIF gracefully encodes without introducing many artifcats. Still, i've yet to see an scenario were it does better enough than JXL to ignore the later's advantages.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >airbrushing 0.04 bpp is good quality

            Why do you keep saying this, Daiz

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            What's your point? it has been stated that AVIF's lossless encoding is an afterthought
            https://github.com/AOMediaCodec/av1-avif/issues/111
            JXL's is better for this task on many if not most scenarios cause AV1 straight up doesn't care.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            NTA but I often wonder if we really need lossless now that we have 10-bit 444 lossy with AVIF. Same could have been said about 8-bit 444 JPG had we not moved on from CRT).

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            You're out of your damn mind. Lossless serialization is, always has been, and always will be more important than lossy.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Not really otherwise lossless video compression would have become become popular. With 10-bit 444 we now have the ability to represent rec 2020 color spaces 99% accurately.

            Sure that 1% accuracy loss isn't tolerated by say the library of congress but for internet distribution it's not really a big deal especially with new high PPI displays.

            I mean realistically speaking you wouldn't really want to save a lossless rendition of an 4K res image in lossless anyway. We only do that right now because there hasn't been a good 444 10-bit lossy format yet.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >good 444 10-bit lossy format
            unironically jpeg via jpegli

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            It's nowhere near as good as "4K images under 100KB" AVIF.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            that avif is below minimum viable quality and is thus useless
            there is no use case for very low quality high resolution images

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >What is high PPI
            4K is NOT exclusively used by giant TVs.

            https://www.pcmag.com/picks/the-best-4k-laptops

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I see you have already lost track of your own thread
            100kb 4k avif is closer to a 100kb 4k libjpeg-turbo than a lossless image
            you're writing nonsense

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            lolno it isn't, see

            [...]

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            if you're saying that that avif is an encoding of the jxl next to it, then it's very far from near-lossless
            if you aren't, refer to

            I see you have already lost track of your own thread
            100kb 4k avif is closer to a 100kb 4k libjpeg-turbo than a lossless image
            you're writing nonsense

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Are you SERIOUSLY suggesting that the sub-100KB 4K AVIF in

            Just so everyone can have a good reference point of what AVIF is capable of here is a 4K image under 100 KB. Notice how it lacks the blockly artefacts found in jpeg/jpeg-xl. Hardware accelerated AV1 would bump the file size to around 400 KB but that's still MILES better than the 1 MB (or higher if not mozjpeg/jpegli) jpeg file size.

            https://files.catbox.moe/ycknht.avif

            is a blocky mess like the jpeg xl in

            [...]

            Because if so I think you need to get your eyes checked tbh senpai.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            you seem to be talking about a completely unrelated topic
            are you claiming that 100kb is the expected size of an avif encode of a 4k image where it's visually indistinguishable from the source?
            note that no non-avif codec is in question here

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            For high PPI displays (ie 4K laptops), absolutely.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            okay, we can test this
            provide a way to encode 100kb avif
            I can gather a set of sample 4k images of various corpora and can encode them, or give them to you to encode
            ssimulacra2 >= 90 is considered visually lossless, so if we get a median below that, your claim is invalidated

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >developed by Jon Sneyers
            No thanks rabbi.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I would also accept butteraugli 3-norm below 1.0
            dssim does not have a commonly-accepted "visually lossless" threshold
            other metrics are trash
            if you decline this on the grounds of antisemitism, I will interpret it as you admitting that you have no idea what you're talking and are just spouting meaningless drivel

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Do you have a 4K laptop? If not I think wecan both agree that we're wasting our time.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            of course I do, but that's beside the point
            we're talking about objective metrics

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            "objective" metrics don't mean shit with high PPI displays because said metrics were tested with low PPI displays.

            Anyway thanks for admitting you're a israelite, I can finally close this shit thread.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I see you have conceded your point the moment you were faced with a real empirical test, despite all the concessions and relaxations I offered to your initial claim
            quite pathetic
            I'll be sure to refer to this whenever you spout your drivel again

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      technically you can use wget and even configure your browser not to accept webp. the jpeg is there. it's your browser that says "sure ill accept a webp"

  6. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I wouldn't hate WEBP if stuff actually supported it. And I don't mean just IQfy, even MS paint and the default Windows 10 image viewer doesn't support it. From what I've read, Adobe only added support for it to their software after years of complaining.
    Is there a reason why this is the case?

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      because that software is garbage, ffmpeg supports it, imagemagick supports it, GIMP supports it, my image viewer of choice supports it.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        I wouldn't hate WEBP if stuff actually supported it. And I don't mean just IQfy, even MS paint and the default Windows 10 image viewer doesn't support it. From what I've read, Adobe only added support for it to their software after years of complaining.
        Is there a reason why this is the case?

        Even Blender supports it. It can use WebP for textures and export renders as WebP.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >ffmpeg supports it
        barely
        can't do animated.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      No hardware acceleration. Though it's not really a big deal anymore as CPUs have become better but now we have AVIF so webp is starting to become a legacy codec like jpeg.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        > now we have AVIF so webp is starting to become a legacy codec like jpeg

        AVIF has worse lossless compression of 24-bit pixels, and thus we would need WebP even if we had AVIF support on IQfy now.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      File Explorer, the Photos app and MS Paint all support WEBP in Windows 11.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >windows 11

        haha okay kid

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      is it supported on windows 11 photo viewer at least?

  7. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    apt install webp-pixbuf-loader

    Works for me.

  8. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Just so everyone can have a good reference point of what AVIF is capable of here is a 4K image under 100 KB. Notice how it lacks the blockly artefacts found in jpeg/jpeg-xl. Hardware accelerated AV1 would bump the file size to around 400 KB but that's still MILES better than the 1 MB (or higher if not mozjpeg/jpegli) jpeg file size.

    https://files.catbox.moe/ycknht.avif

  9. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    That's absolutely insane.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Left looks better thoughbeit

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        If you can already see the huge loss in quality with such a small screenshot, how is that any good?

        The point is the fricking thing went from nearly 3 MB to under 100KB. AVIF adoptioni literally can't come soon enough.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Avif is good but JXL would be better because we can losslessly recompress existing JPEGs

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            both would be better
            >nooo diversity is le bad
            tsmt diversity is when everyone is brown

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            What would be the benefit of only saving 20% vs 90% filesize?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            No generation loss

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Okay, let's try low filesize comparisons then.
          Encode this simple image to AVIF under 300 bytes: https://files.catbox.moe/0iwsz2.png
          Attached is a 259 byte JPEG, but IQfy will likely bloat it up to 572 bytes on upload, so here's the actual file: https://files.catbox.moe/fru90v.jpg

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Forgot IQfy attachment

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Compressmaxxed

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            That's besides the point. The topic here is AVIF or I'd have posted the 30-byte JXL instead.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            [...]
            >Still spreading this lie after being debunked
            JXL is in fact the ONLY true GIF replacement. AVIF can't losslessly recompress with good results. The best you can do is masqurade WebM's as images and achieve absolutely nothing.

            E.g. this GIF here is 160 kB in JXL.

            Nobody cares about your meme format Daiz

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            You misquoted one of these, unless you're including JPEG (a format superior to AVIF) in that.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Daiz
            >Pro-JXL
            moron.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            He openly said on twitter he likes israeliteXL

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Not the same person. The IQfy tripgay was an AVIF apologetic.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Forgot IQfy attachment

            8K TVs will probably hit ~$1,000 in the next few years. I'm sure you'll be able to afford a 4k tv by then as you find them in thirft stores for like $50.

            https://www.digitaltrends.com/home-theater/best-8k-tv-deals/

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            That's not a response to what I posted.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Could you try going lower than 128x128? This is a crazy high resolution that no one will ever use.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            So you give up? You admit that AVIF is unsuitable for low-resolution images?

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          it looks like SHIT though jfc what is wrong with you google format shills, google formats are trash designed to do exactly one thing - save google shekels on bandwidth costs. it's an anti user format

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            No that would jpeg xl, the israeli format that can't replaced GIF. So you know, we'd be stuck using GIF on our 8K TVs.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >JPEG is not the best format for videos!!!!
            OK and?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Checked. Anyway we need something to replace GIF especially as this AI text to video thing keeps getting better and better. Standard video files just aren't good enough.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            jpeg xl and you KNOW this israelite format is going to get shilled in this thread.

            >no browser support (other than the gay browser)
            >unsolved patent dispute with microsoft
            >poor compression efficiency with non-photographic images
            >horrendously dogdhit compression for animation (ie GIF replacement)
            And so on and so.

            At least webp has browser support but ee really should be moving onto AVIF since it supports 10-bit and HDR.

            >Still spreading this lie after being debunked
            JXL is in fact the ONLY true GIF replacement. AVIF can't losslessly recompress with good results. The best you can do is masqurade WebM's as images and achieve absolutely nothing.

            E.g. this GIF here is 160 kB in JXL.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Cool now do 4K with HDR.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            You're thinking of videos, not images.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Sure, we all just LOVE opening a fricking video player to watch a sub-10 second animation that loops.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Ah yes, because we often watch 4k HDR GIFs.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            see

            Checked. Anyway we need something to replace GIF especially as this AI text to video thing keeps getting better and better. Standard video files just aren't good enough.

            Another israelite years and even POOR people will be able to afford 32GB graphic cards.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Anything that can play a hardware-accelerated 4k HDR (and likely 60+ FPS etc.) "animated image" is a video player.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I'm talking about text to video. We already have experimental local models.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            That's completely unrelated to AVIF being a GIF replacement and thus I'm out of this inane discussion.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Too bad you can't use those models to train yourself not to be a moron and stay on topic

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous
          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            how is this relevant? If I need an image, I will get it from original source, not google

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            You DO realize smaller image file sizes save hosting costs for websites, right? The only things websites don't host is ads, the things they need to keep the site up and running...

            Anyway going from say 1MB for a 4K image to ~400KB might not sound like much for (You) but imagine how much more efford it would take to distribute the former across 1 million users. That adds up.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      If you can already see the huge loss in quality with such a small screenshot, how is that any good?

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        you can see it side by side, but can you notice avif artifacts without seeing the original? Same with JPEG XL.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      right side desperately needs some AA bro

  10. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    He has for decades been using a bot to look at every new post every second and ping him when it finds a post mentioning his name or a certain word.

    Also, only a fool would think he hasn't outsourced manually spamming to something like ChatGPT.

    There are posts on IQfy posted well over a decade ago mentioning how creepy he is.

    https://desuarchive.org/_/search/text/daiz%20summoning/order/asc/

  11. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    [...]

    He has for decades been using a bot to look at every new post every second and ping him when it finds a post mentioning his name or a certain word.

    Also, only a fool would think he hasn't outsourced manually spamming to something like ChatGPT.

    There are posts on IQfy posted well over a decade ago mentioning how creepy he is.

    https://desuarchive.org/_/search/text/daiz%20summoning/order/asc/

    The AVIF moron isn't the actual Daiz.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >trust me bro someone is impersonating the samegayging narcissistic paradoxical compulsive lying scammer

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        By their own admission, yes. They're calling themselves "pixDAIZ" because they believe that Daiz popularized 10-bit AVC and they want to do the same for AVIF, or something deranged like that.

        See:

        [...]

        >I'm just a fan of DAIZ

        [...]

        >btw I'm not OG DAIZ

        [...]

        >I'll probably never match up to the OG DAIZ but I'll try.

        [...]

        >As a DAIZ fanatic who failed the A+ TWICE
        etc.

        What evidence do you have that this person is the actual Daiz? In fact, calling them that gives them undue credit, since I doubt that Daiz is anywhere near this uneducated about the thing they try to promote.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Someone behaving exactly like Daiz and claiming to not be him doesn't mean shit. It means he's samegayging because his real trip code is banned and/or wants to pretend there's someone out there who wants to be him. He's a narcissist. We're not throwing these adjectives around for fun when it comes to him.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            But what purpose would disclaiming being Daiz from both sides have if that's true? Why have a Daiz-based name then?
            And do you really believe that the real Daiz is this moronic, regardless of how much you dislike him?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >his real trip code is banned and/or wants to pretend there's someone out there who wants to be him.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            This sounds like a complete schizo theory, but you do you.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Not the same person. The IQfy tripgay was an AVIF apologetic.

            Why don't you explain to use why we're supposed to believe you instead of attacking everyone, Daiz.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >be you aka Daiz
            >samegay
            >claim someone is impersonating me
            >HURR DUDR YOU'RE ALL SCHIZO REEEEEE
            Do everyone a favor and have a nice day.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >And do you really believe that the real Daiz is this moronic

            What he's doing isn't moronic. You can get newbies to eat shit if you spam that Redditors or israelites will be repulsed by it.

            Also, he "legally" sells translations of rape porn and reports people for distributing CSAM if they distribute what he sells without his permission and he can't intimidate them with copyright claims.

            He doesn't give a shit about being ridiculous and hypocritical because he knows there's no justice in a world with morons.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            [...]

            Why don't you explain to use why we're supposed to believe you instead of attacking everyone, Daiz.

            pixDAIZ is a tech-illiterate Wincuck who can't encode for shit and used existing stuff to further his points (e.g. 2KB Evangelion keyframes). I'm pretty sure there is a post in the archive revealing how clueless he was in a post showing his desktop with a Windows command prompt.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Someone behaving exactly like Daiz and claiming to not be him doesn't mean shit. It means he's samegayging because his real trip code is banned and/or wants to pretend there's someone out there who wants to be him. He's a narcissist. We're not throwing these adjectives around for fun when it comes to him.

            https://desuarchive.org/g/thread/94046693/#94053491

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Find me that post from months ago which theorized that Daiz is spamming IQfy with AVIF shill posts to promote JXL. Obviously, he isn't promoting JXL because IQfy is where people become moronic after pretending to be moronic.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Daiz is many things but not tech illiterate.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Daiz
            >D
            >aiz
            That's the point.

  12. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >He openly said on twitter he likes israeliteXL
    >He

    Grooming as always, Daiz. If you weren't a narcissist and compulsive liar, your post on Twitter would've been at least slightly plausible.

  13. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Humiliation ritual made format

  14. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Reminder Daiz is behind every single AVIF shill post.

    If you shill for AVIF, then you're a moronic newbie who were groomed by Daiz and you should therefore not get mad when someone calls you Daiz.

    He stopped using his trip code after someone looked into an archive and discovered that he's behind every AVIF shill post, something that he genuinely didn't expect anyone to do.

    Expect lots of samegayging from the narcissist.

    Also, he's probably not getting paid by Google.

    Before he got called out:
    https://desuarchive.org/_/search/text/avif/end/2024-02-24/

    Getting called out:
    https://desuarchive.org/g/thread/99167108

    Aftermath:
    https://desuarchive.org/_/search/text/avif/start/2024-02-25/

  15. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    This thread is proof jpeg xl is by far going to be one of the most annoying formats ever. Because only apple supports this shit they're going to shill apple as well.

  16. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    i FRICKING HATE IT !

  17. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Okay now I see why you gays are so obsessed with avif. I got a 4MB jpg down to about 200 KB with it. Obviously lower quality but it's not too bad imho.

    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fb/CF-1_flight_test.jpg

    https://s180.convertio.me/p/lXyvgai3x_6jqrOHUwIKpA/a7c6f4d68917c4bdd81f029f930bec78/CF-1_flight_test.avif

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Reduced by 1MB using lossless JXL. Not bad.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        I don't know how to manually convert images but I imagine the closer it got to 1 MB the harder it becomes to tell it apart from the source image.

        IMHO I would be fine with this 200KB version. I don't generally zoom into images to autistically try to find what detail is missing, it looks good enough for me.

  18. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    if IQfy took it I'd be more than happy with it

  19. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    all my homies hate webp

  20. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Why not just ignore both pixDAIZ and the Daizschizo?

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Because it's like a drama TV show for IQfy.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Why not have a nice day, Daiz? Afraid none of the newbies will continue spamming for you?

  21. 3 weeks ago
    sage

    As always, Google is trying to ruin the Internet. And some websites (idiots) listen to google's recommendations thinking it's good for them when it's only good for gogole.

  22. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >more like Tel-AVIF amirite?

  23. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Why do these kind of threads always end in some schizo losing his shit over some namegay and why don't the mods perma him already? Who the frick even cares and why would it matter what he said? AVIF has clear advantages over JXL and some namegay schizo mumbling doesn't change that fact.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      This guy honestly just makes me hate israeliteXL and everything connected to it. He's doing a better job at making AVIF popular than any daiz ever could

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Why do these kind of threads always end in some schizo losing his shit over some namegay and why don't the mods perma him already? Who the frick even cares and why would it matter what he said? AVIF has clear advantages over JXL and some namegay schizo mumbling doesn't change that fact.

        t. paid tel-AVIF shills

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Don't forget to call him Daiz. It pisses him off if people find out.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      This guy honestly just makes me hate israeliteXL and everything connected to it. He's doing a better job at making AVIF popular than any daiz ever could

      pixDaiz and the Daiz schizo are the same person you fricking morons. You are falling for a reverse psychology psyop.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Maybe if you stopped showing up in every image thread to spread your bullshit, the schizo would stop showing up to respond to it.

      Why isn't Daiz permanently banned? He's obviously ban evading.

      >Why isn't Daiz permanently banned?
      He is.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >Maybe if you stopped showing up in every image thread to spread your bullshit, the schizo would stop showing up to respond to it.
        No he wouldn't you fricking moron. As soon as someone just mentions AVIF he will come out of his hiding and make the thread all about himself and his delusions.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Sure. But nobody ever brings up AVIF except you, when you feel like it's time to make everything about yourself and your delusions.

          You're two sides of the same coin. So why don't you both frick off?

  24. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    i was able to halve the size of most images on my website thanks to webp and yet they look the same. png/jpg baby ducks itt

  25. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The OP who is totally not Daiz making a thinly veiled AVIF shill thread is shilling AVIF which

    >doesn't support more than x4000 pixels

    >only saves more space than JXL if the image quality is destroyed

    >gets beaten by JPG

    >encodes and decodes slower than JXL

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      It was inevitable that newbies will think AVIF is worth anything because a rapist who cuddles with SJWs on Twitter and neo-Nazis on IQfy spammed AVIF shill posts for a few months.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >The OP who is totally not Daiz making a thinly veiled AVIF shill thread is shilling AVIF which
      >
      >doesn't support more than x4000 pixels
      >
      >only saves more space than JXL if the image quality is destroyed
      >
      >gets beaten by JPG
      >
      >encodes and decodes slower than JXL

      Why is the AVIF shill so mentally ill?

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Is D*iz getting paid by Google or is he a Google fan who decided to shill AVIF for free after Google decided to kill off JXL?

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Dâiz doesn't work for free because he's greedy, he literally works for someone called Jacob Greedy and several israelites and helps them promote rape to make millions of dollars in profit. He's either hoping that Google will pay him for his hard work or Google is paying him already.

          This is funny because Google is the biggest funder to JXL. Imagine paying someone to shill to shift public opinion against something you funded.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      > doesn't support more than x4000 pixels

      It actually supports z5000.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        He's clearly either a covert AVIF shill or a really stupid jpeg xl shill because both baseline (4k max) and advanced (8k max) are only for hardware decoders.

        Software decoding a 100MP AVIF image isn't a problem. That's literally what's being used in the openbenchmark libavif results. That said the speed 0 encodes used to make 4K images under 100KB still take a long time.

        https://openbenchmarking.org/test/pts/avifenc&eval=55798362c6ea37f5a8e05dfcc1c7634f3de04cad#metrics

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          I don't think it's meant to be a real argument in favour of JXL over AVIF that would work on a neutral party. More likely, it's a point targeted specifically at the notorious AVIF shill who regularly claims that hardware acceleration is essential for images, and that's why AVIF is better than JXL.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Interesting. So you think wh decode for avif will be limited to 4K?

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I don't have a clue. Hardware acceleration for images is not relevant and never will be, so I don't know the limitations of AVIF hardware decoding. I've never had a reason to look into those limitations. But yes, I think that's what's being claimed here

            I don't think it's meant to be a real argument in favour of JXL over AVIF that would work on a neutral party. More likely, it's a point targeted specifically at the notorious AVIF shill who regularly claims that hardware acceleration is essential for images, and that's why AVIF is better than JXL.

            .

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            How is better battery life not relevant? Webkit literally specifies use of jpeg hardware decoding which is why mozjpeg was never adopted. AFAIK the output creates non-standard jpegs that can't be hardware decoded.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            It's an image, not a video. You use more power having your screen on during the time it takes to transfer a JPG to the hardware that decodes and back, than you would by just decoding in software.

            Last time someone in one of these threads tried to find evidence of anyone actually hardware decoding JPG, they came back with a bug ticket for Safari where the solution was to never use hardware decoding. It is simply not done.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Then mozjpeg should be used EVERYWHERE right now but the hardware jpeg decoders can't decode the output.

            Webp adoption would have never happebed if google had not forced it on the web.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            WebKit has not snubbed Mozjpeg for whatever bullshit reason you've convinced yourself of. They have their own internal policies regarding when to change a dependency, and those policies favour the use of reference implementations. Mozjpeg produces fully compliant JPG without any particularly fancy bells and whistles. It is used essentially everywhere.

            Your problem is that when faced with something you can't explain, you just make shit up. You don't bother trying to find an explanation, and you refuse to accept any evidence to the contrary. That's precisely the opposite of the scientific method, and it's why you're always wrong.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Bull fricking shit. Post a mozjpeg encoded image.

            protip: you can't, it will get converted to a jpeg hardware decode version

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I refuse to believe that even pixDAIZ is this stupid

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Okay, I'm looking at your straw man, Daiz

            Which one is he? You both can't be right.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            pixdaiz is a sock puppet by daiz because daiz is a narcissist and wants people to think there's someone out there who wants to be like him

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Webkit literally specifies use of jpeg hardware decoding
            This is a lie

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I don't have a clue. Hardware acceleration for images is not relevant and never will be, so I don't know the limitations of AVIF hardware decoding. I've never had a reason to look into those limitations. But yes, I think that's what's being claimed here [...].

            Rather, I think that's what's being claimed here:

            He's clearly either a covert AVIF shill or a really stupid jpeg xl shill because both baseline (4k max) and advanced (8k max) are only for hardware decoders.

            Software decoding a 100MP AVIF image isn't a problem. That's literally what's being used in the openbenchmark libavif results. That said the speed 0 encodes used to make 4K images under 100KB still take a long time.

            https://openbenchmarking.org/test/pts/avifenc&eval=55798362c6ea37f5a8e05dfcc1c7634f3de04cad#metrics

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            The hardware decoder uses the avif baseline profile which only supports x4000 pixels. When you go above it, it defaults to software decoding and treats the picture as a puzzle, lmao

            Meme.format

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Why is this shitty format allowed to be shilled so much?

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Because Daiz is the shill and he works for a company called Fakku whose founder is somebody called Jacob Greedy and bribes mods with $1 off coupon codes on Fakku.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            see

            [...]
            coded image items compliant to the AVIF Baseline profile may not have a number of pixels greater than 8912896, a width greater than 8192 or a height greater than 4352

            You can literally encode a 8000x1000 image for baseline avif with 0 decoding problems.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Okay, I'm looking at your straw man, Daiz

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Daiz, you're not not very good at samegayging. We still know it's you when you LARP as a centrist.

          >both baseline (4k max) and advanced (8k max) are only for hardware decoders.
          >
          >Software decoding a 100MP AVIF image isn't a problem. That's literally what's being used in the openbenchmark libavif results. That said the speed 0 encodes used to make 4K images under 100KB still take a long time.

          Why are you so fricking bad at lying?

          Oh right, newbies don't give a shit about facts. Just keep being you by spamming AVIF shill posts and how israelites hate AVIF and soon newbies will shill AVIF with you so you won't have to do it alone.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            The hardware decoder uses the avif baseline profile which only supports x4000 pixels. When you go above it, it defaults to software decoding and treats the picture as a puzzle, lmao

            Meme.format

            coded image items compliant to the AVIF Baseline profile may not have a number of pixels greater than 8912896, a width greater than 8192 or a height greater than 4352

            You can literally encode a 8000x1000 image for baseline avif with 0 decoding problems.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Have you yet tested if you've got schizo and other mental illnesses because of how much you lie and "pretend" to be moronic, Daiz?

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            You really have trouble doing a simple google search?

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            [...]
            coded image items compliant to the AVIF Baseline profile may not have a number of pixels greater than 8912896, a width greater than 8192 or a height greater than 4352

            You can literally encode a 8000x1000 image for baseline avif with 0 decoding problems.

            He's clearly either a covert AVIF shill or a really stupid jpeg xl shill because both baseline (4k max) and advanced (8k max) are only for hardware decoders.

            Software decoding a 100MP AVIF image isn't a problem. That's literally what's being used in the openbenchmark libavif results. That said the speed 0 encodes used to make 4K images under 100KB still take a long time.

            https://openbenchmarking.org/test/pts/avifenc&eval=55798362c6ea37f5a8e05dfcc1c7634f3de04cad#metrics

  26. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Why isn't Daiz permanently banned? He's obviously ban evading.

  27. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Daiz isn't getting banned.

    He bribes the mods.and is part of the reason why Exhentai was banned on IQfy so newbies couldn't learn why his business is a scam.

  28. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Do websites switch to webp to make it more difficult for people to save their images?

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      they do it to reduce costs

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >make it more difficult for people to save their images?
      Are you on Windows XP or something?
      It only affects bandwidth (smaller image sizes).

  29. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >you fricking moron. As soon as I shill AVIF he will come

    BASED.

    Anyone who reveals your samegayging and shilling and causes you frustration is a net positive you absolute abomination.

  30. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >oh look it's one of these threads again

  31. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >oh look I'm forced to take off my new trip code because people found out I'm the only one shilling for AVIF and some are even hiding my new trip code in the filter

  32. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >check his Twitter to see if he is always insane like when he shills AVIF
    >first tweet I see from him is where he says you're a bigot if you don't support pedophiles, says you're a bigot if you think homosexuals and trannies are pedophiles, and says Japs are a minority (as in refugees) because there are billions of non-Japanese

  33. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Man, I miss when a tripcode was in sight. You wouldn't get paranoid people accusing each other of samegayging, and there was no plausible ignorance on the tripgay's part when they already got thoroughly debunked.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      I mean it's pretty easy to tell that the guy talking about daiz all the time is all the same person, why would anyone care about that shit anyway? Couldn't care less what some namegay posted, couldn't care less what some schizo posted. Just add daiz to the filter and be done with it.

  34. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    jfif

  35. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Man, I miss when mentally ill people were locked up in hospitals with no way to communicate with humans. You wouldn't get an actual paranoid moron take his trip code off, samegay more and spam that everyone else is paranoid.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      I mean it's pretty easy to tell that the guy talking about AVIF all the time is all the same person, why would anyone care about that shit anyway? Couldn't care less what some schizo namegay posted, couldn't care less about a worthless image format getting beaten by JPG. Just add AVIF and daiz to the filter and be done with it.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        To be fair

        Just so everyone can have a good reference point of what AVIF is capable of here is a 4K image under 100 KB. Notice how it lacks the blockly artefacts found in jpeg/jpeg-xl. Hardware accelerated AV1 would bump the file size to around 400 KB but that's still MILES better than the 1 MB (or higher if not mozjpeg/jpegli) jpeg file size.

        https://files.catbox.moe/ycknht.avif

        is pretty impressive.

  36. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    yes. .bmp

  37. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >explicitly send "webp" in the accept header
    >get mad when the server respond with a webp
    Why are kids like this?

  38. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    i dont care about webop

  39. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    To be fair if you killed yourself instead of brainwashing newbies that destroying image quality is good would be even more impressive.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      That 4K anime image isn't blocky like it would be with jpeg xl.

  40. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >10 bit videos good because blocky means good quality
    >AVIF good because smearing shit and pixelating the picture means good quality

    ok d*iz

  41. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Is there a more annoying image format?
    no.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      There is. It's called AVIF.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Uh oh you said D*iz's favorite format is shit. Now he'll spam more.

  42. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    .gifv was pretty fricking stupid, literally just a locked down version of .webm. Luckily they gave up on it fast.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Wait that was an actual format? I though that was just a israeli invention of imgur to make it harder to embed gifs directly from their urls

  43. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    Sir, this is a daiz circlejerk thread.

  44. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Forget AVIF, forget JPEG XL, forget Daiz, forget pixDaiz, forget daizhater, this is a WebP thread.

    IQfy needs WebP support for a long time already.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Nah, it's a pretty meh format overall. While it does outperform the original jpeg and hardware jpeg encoders in general it's not really impressive against mozjpeg let alone jpegli.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        It's the current state of the art for browser-supported 8-BPC lossless. AVIF is superior for lossy with transparency and JPEG for lossy without transparency, though.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          How many times in this week have you spammed that destroying the image quality is good to shill AVIF, D*iz?

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Stop being a moron and read my post. Your options for transparent lossy in web browser are:
            - lossily preprocessed/quantized PNG or lossless WebP (lol)
            - lossy WebP (chroma-subsampled VP8)
            - lossy AVIF (can do 4:4:4 AV1)
            Which one would be the highest fidelity pick out of these?

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Stop being a moron

            That's funny coming from you, D*iz

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            You're just as much of a moron and troll as the AVIF shill, so I'll give you the same treatment as I give them.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >a moron and troll as the AVIF shill

            Awesome. You're self aware, D*iz. Finally taking your meds?

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Are there image boards supporting it already? I can imagine it prob a nightmare to the entire archive database system just to add one more file format.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        You're moronic

  45. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Add AV1 support
    >AVIF implicitly supported through single-frame video
    >???
    >Profit!

    Regardless, WebP already has a widely supported successor. No reason to add an obsolete format.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >WebP already has a widely supported successor
      Wrong picture?

  46. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >recently I've been using jpegli to convert some bloated pngs to small jpegs
    >it can't read webp shit though
    >even though it's literally made by google

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      It can't read WebP or AVIF, but it can handle JXL input just fine.

  47. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Is there a more annoying image format?
    Yes jxl and avif, the moment websites starts to supports them the moment you'll have the same frustration you had with webp

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Depends how quickly they get avif hardware decoding out. That's the only thing in the way of widespread adoption right now.

  48. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    of course

  49. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    dds was always a hassle to deal with when modding games

  50. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >>good point#
    see stupid shit i said before#
    Is one of your most obvious tells. Consider not doing it if you want to get away with samegayging.

  51. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >airbrushing 0.04 bpp is good quality

    Why does D*iz spam this in every thread?

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      You've been saying this and that you'll rape every Booru site with re-encoded lossy pixelated AVIF when you started your anti-JXL crusade after Google killed JXL for AVIF. So why haven't you done it?

      It's almost as if you're a shill, Daiz.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        What's the source?

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Daiz re-encoded an already re-encoded file to AV1 and then re-encoded the AVIF screenshot to JXL without telling anyone about which settings were used. Despite trying so hard, he couldn't produce an AVIF image with better quality and lower size than JXL despite raping the image.

          Note how he does this shit every time he needs to deflect.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Daiz re-encoded an already re-encoded file to AV1 and then re-encoded the AVIF screenshot to JXL without telling anyone about which settings were used. Despite trying so hard, he couldn't produce an AVIF image with better quality and lower size than JXL despite raping the image.

          Note how he does this shit every time he needs to deflect.

          I really don't understand why jpeg-xl didn't get rid of those PUTRID DISGUSTING HIDEOUS blocky artefacts. Kind of seems like something a modern image format shouldn't really have, you know?

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            It's okay, Daiz. You never do.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            The alternative to artifacts is to blur the image. jpeg/xl emphasizes accuracy, whereas video formats (life avif) are fine with something visually appealing but inaccurate.

  52. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Has Daiz ever posted proof that all images on the internet are in 0.04 bpp?

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Of course. He doesn't explain anything. Otherwise he wouldn't be able to groom newbies because they'd get suspicious or he doesn't know what he's talking about.

  53. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I know I'm going to get shit on for saying this but AV1 video and AVIF images are inherently the same thing so there's a lot of advantages to be had with that.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      What's your point? it has been stated that AVIF's lossless encoding is an afterthought
      https://github.com/AOMediaCodec/av1-avif/issues/111
      JXL's is better for this task on many if not most scenarios cause AV1 straight up doesn't care.

      NTA but I often wonder if we really need lossless now that we have 10-bit 444 lossy with AVIF. Same could have been said about 8-bit 444 JPG had we not moved on from CRT).

      Now hardware decoding is the biggest concern. Same with AVIF but Android decided to make it a requirement for new Android 14 phones so we'll see how that goes.

      Not really otherwise lossless video compression would have become become popular. With 10-bit 444 we now have the ability to represent rec 2020 color spaces 99% accurately.

      Sure that 1% accuracy loss isn't tolerated by say the library of congress but for internet distribution it's not really a big deal especially with new high PPI displays.

      I mean realistically speaking you wouldn't really want to save a lossless rendition of an 4K res image in lossless anyway. We only do that right now because there hasn't been a good 444 10-bit lossy format yet.

      >NTA

      Always fun to see you LARP as a moronic newbie, Daiz

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Of course. He doesn't explain anything. Otherwise he wouldn't be able to groom newbies because they'd get suspicious or he doesn't know what he's talking about.

        Stop bumping this stupid thread you monkeys.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          newbie

  54. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    jfif

  55. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >shitty library vulnerable to buffer overflow cve
    >not really an image format, essentially a 1-frame webm
    >smaller maximum resolution than other image formats
    >not compatible with most software
    >controlled by google
    i hate the antichrist

  56. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >every website in existence started using it, all at once
    >no warning, no time for image editors to support it
    yep! we have a winner for the WORST FRICKING FORMAT FRICK YOU FRICK YOU FRICK YOU

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      it's been literally years since ive started seeing webp in the wild and IQfy still doesn't support it

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Now hardware decoding is the biggest concern. Same with AVIF but Android decided to make it a requirement for new Android 14 phones so we'll see how that goes.

  57. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >unsupported because no one uses it
    >no one uses it because its unsupported

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *