Now that the holy trinity has settled what could we still improve?

Now that the holy trinity has settled what could we still improve?

POSIWID: The Purpose Of A System Is What It Does Shirt $21.68

It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14

POSIWID: The Purpose Of A System Is What It Does Shirt $21.68

  1. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Oh boy this is gonna make the daizschizo so mad I can't wait

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous
    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      https://i.imgur.com/rMSrAW0.png

      Now that the holy trinity has settled what could we still improve?

      Samegay. Everyone knows this is you, Daiz

      If you waited a few days before spamming IQfy, you'd have more newbies falling for your moronic deceit.

  2. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    what happened to jpeg xl?

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous
      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        What hardware acceleration has to do with image compression?

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          And why would the client care if the image was compressed using hardware acceleration or not (if that is/was the case)?
          All that matters is the final file size and the quality.

          Decoding you smooth brain. jpeg xl gays claim that even the shittiest phone can decode jpeg at 100MP/s but they have no explanation as to why jpeg hardware decoding shows up in spec sheets.

          That said arguing about hw accel is stupid until you get to like 4K resolution which to be fair all consumer electronics are fast approaching, even phones.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I'll look it up AVIF, but I thought that the browser responsible to decide how to decode?

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Browsers are pretty famous for using hw accel to not be slow. That's why firefox has been in the shitter for the last decade or so as it became a political tool and no longed a good open source project.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Firefox has Hardware Acceleration since forever

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >why jpeg hardware decoding shows up in spec sheets
            Because at one point, someone thought it was a good idea. Nobody actually uses it, but in case someone does decide to use it, it needs to be kept around for backwards-compatibility.

            You have the option of taking a nap in a trash compactor. That doesn't make it a good idea. And if you decide to do it, it'll be a lot harder to make happen than it sounds on paper.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Literally everything.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        And why would the client care if the image was compressed using hardware acceleration or not (if that is/was the case)?
        All that matters is the final file size and the quality.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      For our newfriends, the OP is Daiz who is behind every single AVIF shill post.

      If you think AVIF is good, you've been groomed by Daiz and shouldn't get mad when someone thinks you're him.

      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 robably 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/

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Here's what Daiz spams when he attacks JXL (which he does to snare in newbies):
        - You're supposed to like AVIF because Google supports it
        - You're supposed to hate JXL because Apple supports it despite Google funding its development and Apple supporting AVIF
        - You're supposed to hate JXL because of a patent that has nothing to do with it
        - You're supposed to hate JXL because he claims Apple put malware in it
        - You're supposed to like AVIF because it reduces bandwidth and electrical costs and Google will make more money
        - You're a corporate bootlicker if you prefer JXL because it's faster, smaller and less resource demanding than AVIF
        - You're supposed to like AVIF because every video will be re-encoded to AV1 with a BPP that is five times lower than the average BPP, computing power is free, people like to count pixels and JXL doesn't have hardware acceleration
        - And you're mentally ill if you disagree

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Here's what Daiz spams when he attacks JXL (which he does to snare in newbies):
        - You're supposed to like AVIF because Google supports it
        - You're supposed to hate JXL because Apple supports it despite Google funding its development and Apple supporting AVIF
        - You're supposed to hate JXL because of a patent that has nothing to do with it
        - You're supposed to hate JXL because he claims Apple put malware in it
        - You're supposed to like AVIF because it reduces bandwidth and electrical costs and Google will make more money
        - You're a corporate bootlicker if you prefer JXL because it's faster, smaller and less resource demanding than AVIF
        - You're supposed to like AVIF because every video will be re-encoded to AV1 with a BPP that is five times lower than the average BPP, computing power is free, people like to count pixels and JXL doesn't have hardware acceleration
        - And you're mentally ill if you disagree

        I'm not going to read all that, tl;dr?

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          the tldr is that you've ADHD and must step away from the computer

  3. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    VR, would be nice if there was a simple format that allowed you to share arbitrary 3D models with vectorized texture with everyone.

  4. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    who is going to draw that bitmap?

  5. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >no FLIF to cover lossless images

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Jon Sneyers, one of the developers of FLIF, since combined it with ideas from various lossy compression formats to create a successor called Free Universal Image Format (FUIF), which itself was combined with Google's PIK format to create JPEG XL. As a consequence, FLIF is no longer being developed.
      It's dead, Jim.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        it's a file format, it doesn't need updates.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >file formats don't need updates
          I'll give it a few years before somebody finds some exploit in FLIF that makes it completely unusable unless if you want to get compromised.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I have 20 year old mp3 files and i've never been hacked. you're just a paranoid updooting homosexual.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Even if there is no exploit, FLIF will be left in the dust in the upcoming future. It offers barely any benefits to up and coming lossless image formats, especially since work on it was basically merged into JPEG-XL. It's basically just a legacy image format that never saw any actual mass usage. Like I said, it's dead, Jim.

  6. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    AVC Hi10 Profile
    Portable Network Graphics (PNG)
    Free Lossless Audio Codec (FLAC)

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Portable Network Graphics
      Total dogshit.

  7. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >mpeg-1
    >bmp
    >wav
    if it works, it works.

  8. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >AV1
    >just buy a new computer, goy

  9. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >VVC for video
    >HEVC if you can't get compatibility
    >VP9 if HEVC license is somehow a problem

    >JXL for images
    >WEBP for lossless if you can't get compatibility
    >JPG for lossy if you can't get compatibility

    >FLAC for lossless audio
    >xHE-AAC for lossy
    >OPUS if you can't get compatibility or the license is a problem

    AOM need not apply. It's structured in a way that discourages development of codecs with any actual merit.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Correct

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >xHE-AAC for lossy
      doesn't it only outperform opus on very low bitrate music???
      I currently use 64-96 kbps vbr opus for my music collection and from my understanding of it, xhe-aac with the exhale encoder provides the same if not worse quality compared to opus

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        As far as I've seen, jury's still out on whether OPUS or xHE-AAC is better above network bitrates.

        The really interesting thing about xHE-AAC, at least in my opinion, is the guaranteed MPEG-D DRC metadata. I've messed with ReplayGain a little bit to get similar effects on other codecs, but it's hard to tell whether a player actually knows about or uses it, whereas you know for a fact that anything reading xHE-AAC is using its loudness data.

        The other thing the DRC has over ReplayGain is that while they measure the same information, ReplayGain is inherently designed to tell you how loud to play, whereas the DRC is inherently designed to tell you how loud the audio is, and then let the device decide the appropriate loudness to play at.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >xHE-AAC
          >~~*patent licensing agreement*~~)
          If it's so close that the "jury's still out" then the israeli option can just be considered pointless trash.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            It plays on my device, at no cost to me, with better results than OPUS. That's all I need.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >with better results than OPUS
            no data provided for that claim

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          opus header gain exists moron
          also which fricking media player doesn't read replaygain data? it's a non issue

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Not anymore

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >VVC for video, HEVC if you can't get compatibility
      how does one even get vvc compatibility? shit basically doesn't exist yet

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      VVC isn't that much better than AV1. They actually had to pay for ~~*~~*~~*(research*~~*~~*~~)) where AV1 was encoded with a fast preset in order for VVC to win.

  10. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Editing the original from 2 years ago
    AVIF shills are fricking pathetic, holy shit.

    https://desuarchive.org/g/thread/88784981/#88784981

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Meh, I don't want to shill an apple sponsored format tbh senpai.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Alright, VP9, JXL, and Opus, then.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Apple has adopted JPEG XL, but has no role in promoting, funding, or governing it. It does, however, have a role in governing and funding the Alliance for Open Media. And by extension, AV1 and AVIF.

          Shilling an Apple-sponsored format is literally all that you ever do.

          You know what I mean, smartass.

          https://caniuse.com/avif
          https://caniuse.com/jpegxl

          I find it rather suspicious that apple adopted it first. They're not famous for adopting good things early on (ie USB C).

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >You know what I mean
            Then fricking say it, instead of outright lying because you think it helps your point. You are a shill for a format sponsored by Apple, lying about another format to try to make it look bad.

            Anyway, Apple actually is notorious for adopting media formats early. They want their walled garden for hardware so that they can sell their own hardware at grossly inflated prices. But for software, they want to capture the "creative" market, so they quickly adopt formats that have the most merit for creative purposes. Adobe, another early adopter for JPEG XL, is the same.

            You can't say it's bad because of low adoption, then blindly shit-talk adopters with blatant lies. The hypocrisy shows that you really don't care about the logic of your arguments at all.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Apple adopted a format that Google deliberately suppressed
            >Let's ignore the adoption outside of the browser realm where they have little influence
            No, there is no saving your argument.

            Webp came out with a huge security vulnerability recently. What makes you think jpeg xl is so secure?

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            It's not written in C. Guess what is, though.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Doesn't know the difference between a format and an implementation
            >Thinks Rust magically improves code quality

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            No library is guaranteed to be secure, but libjxl is using just about every tool that exists for improving C++ safety, its developers have offered browser vendors to port it to a memory-safe language if that's desired, and a third-party Rust implementation also exists. libwebp never had anywhere near that degree of dedication to safety, nor do almost any codecs, including libavif, dav1d, and svt-av1.

            The possibility that code has security vulnerabilities does not mean that people should just stop writing new code. You just do what you can to mitigate the chance and impact of those vulnerabilities, because new and improved functionality is worth the risk.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Nah, something's not right. Apple knows something that we don't.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Even though Firefox still has it in their binary hidden behind a flag?

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Apple has more knowledge than anyone else
            >This extra knowledge has led Apple to decide it's a good idea to support JPEG XL
            >Therefore it is a bad idea to support JPEG XL
            bro

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            https://www.wired.com/story/apple-csam-scanning-heat-initiative-letter/

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Apple adopted a format that Google deliberately suppressed
            >Let's ignore the adoption outside of the browser realm where they have little influence
            No, there is no saving your argument.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          they contributed so little to aom that they didn't even bother sending the fricking logo png to them

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Apple has adopted JPEG XL, but has no role in promoting, funding, or governing it. It does, however, have a role in governing and funding the Alliance for Open Media. And by extension, AV1 and AVIF.

        Shilling an Apple-sponsored format is literally all that you ever do.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      JewXL is dead. Let it rest Jimmy.

  11. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    https://poll-maker.com/poll5203590xf0944f75-157

  12. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Why won't thumbnails show in my folders for .opus files on windows? Is there a way to make them visible? It's aesthetically displeasing

  13. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    AV1 on IQfy when?

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      I'd genuinely not be surprised at all if IQfy still runs some goofy older version of PHP and this is the main impediment to updating image processing libraries and supporting shit like AV1.

  14. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    No that's avi, png, and mp3

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      avi isn't a codec, do you have brain damage?

  15. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Progressive frames like jpeg xl

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