>you will never be a real image format

>you will never be a real image format

A Conspiracy Theorist Is Talking Shirt $21.68

It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14

A Conspiracy Theorist Is Talking Shirt $21.68

  1. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Define what a "real" image format is.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      One that isn't just a video codec in still form, i.e. AVIF and WebP

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        90% of images are just screenshots from videos anyway so who cares

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          yup

          protip: av1 videos have SEKRIT images inside them, like at least 99% of them

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          99% of video frames are not extractable keyframes, so who cares.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >"There's only like 1 bazillion avif images out there bro!"
            >"In 2 more weeks gay peg extra large will dominate the internet, just trust the plan!"

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          The why would you apply video compression on them a second time?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            see

            yup

            protip: av1 videos have SEKRIT images inside them, like at least 99% of them

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I didn't look at the post you linked. Kys yourself promptly.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            See

            99% of video frames are not extractable keyframes, so who cares.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            You have no idea how compression works do you?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Do you?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Yes

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Good for you, anon.

  2. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    We all know why it failed. The name is stupid as frick.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      yup. fat-shaming was all over the place back then and naming things XL did not work well.

  3. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I seriously can('t) believe Mozilla fell for the israeliteBlack person bait and dropped JXL as soon as Google did. Mozilla sucks so fricking much.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Pozilla gets 90% of their funding from Google.
      Cant bite the hand that feeds.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        they can, since they're necessary to prevent an antitrust

  4. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    created my own python script that converts all jpg, jpeg, pngs to jpgxl in parallel and verifies with ImageMagick to see if you can convert the image back to its orginal.

    Also produces a log file incase something goes wrong

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >lightmode
      Why

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        dark mode is hard to read. black text on white background is easiest to read fast

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      use argparse and remove the while true at the top and you're golden anon.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      I did the exact same thing, only with powershell.

  5. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >yet another image format
    Give me a quick rundown why I should replace my beloved JPEG's and PNG's with this shit or a fricking AVIF?

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      jpeg xl losslessly reencodes jpegs for a 20% file size reduction and faster decoding. it's better in literally every way.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >it's better in literally every way.
        Except that nothing supports it.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        jxl is multithreaded vs avif.
        loading a a website with 100 pics jxl is going to be faster, its also progressive showing lower res pic first.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Smaller than PNGs while still being lossless.
      Picrel is with quality set to 100, mathematically lossless.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Actually, here's a better example, a 44Mb(!) png with dimensions of 11,114 by 7019 pixels. Still lossless, it's half the size as a jxl.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >haruhi
        >toradora
        post image pls

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          It's a tag error, it's a set of 4 images

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Actually instead of spamming a bunch of pics the url is here
            https://www.pixiv.net/en/artworks/68641914

            Good taste and thanks

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >mathematically lossless
        So not really lossless at all

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          nothing ever is

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Wrong I can convert a BMP to PNG and then back to BMP without losing any image data

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            so same as JXL's mathematically lossless

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            wrong

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          It is lossless, gooniggler.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        i dont get the lossless meme. i get for achiving purposes. but any online sharing. why wouldnt u use 40% quality where u basically cant tell quality loss from lossless.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Because on the internet it gets 40% encoded over and over again. Look at how crunchy this image is, and I assume it's not that old. Older images are even worse. When I see a great piece of art with terrible JPEG artifacts I genunely get mad.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Actually, here's a better example, a 44Mb(!) png with dimensions of 11,114 by 7019 pixels. Still lossless, it's half the size as a jxl.

        Big Buck Bunny in 18GB JXL from 29GB PNG.
        https://bbb-jxl.lucaversari.it/1920x1080_24fps/

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      At least for AV1 "screenshots" they become very convenient to share. You get both lossless image quality and small file size. Kind of a huge deal for massive 4K/8K screenshots.

      The best part is you will have to do 0 encoding of any kind because AVIF images are interchageable with AV1 keyframes. This has serious implications for image quality all over the internet because like so many anons have pointed out, a huge portion of images all over the internet actually come from videos.

      jpeg xl gays insist that screenshots become bloated as frick (lossless encoding) or have inferior image quality (lossy encoding). This would lead to a total disaster for the web because of course lossy encoding will be used for 4K/8K images.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >everytime someone pulls out a half-assed reason why JXL sucks (screenshots of videos on the internet!)
        Hi there, pixDAIZ, not tripping today, aren't we?
        At least we've moved on from the even more absurd and ridiculous assumption, nobody would be using static images anymore, yes.
        Baby steps, baby steps.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          I'm not him take your meds

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I'm surprised, I really am.
            I thought such moronation was rare enough to be unique.
            I learn something new every day.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Yeah, converting lossless images of 4K AV1 only a few hundred KB in size into a meme format ~1MB or higher in file size or butchering quality with lossy encoding is pretty fricking stupid.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Ok, Mr. Super-Genius, how many of the images on IQfy right now are screenshots from videos?
            There's like two or three boards of the fifty here where it would struggle to even make up half, IQfy and IQfy.

            You are literally delusional if you think video screenshots are in any form particularly significant as a GENERAL raster image format.
            Not insignificant, no and granted, but certainly not a decisive one either.

            Oh well, apparently, people really are this moronic, sigh.
            I guess I owe pixDAIZ an apology for thinking he's exceptionally moronic.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            You're missing the point. 4K videos will eventually become the norm. If everyone adopts AV1 then suddenly there's a gold mine of AVIF images in those AV1 files.

            This literally can't happen with something like jpeg xl because it sucks donkey dick as a video format. It's not even a good replacement for gif.

            Basically AVIF solves MORE quality problems than jpeg xl, you can't deny that.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I am so done with you shills, this is my last post, this is my last post addressing your bullshit reasons

            This anon knows what's up.
            And do you think developers will
            >There's a user video playing, better extract the AV1 keyframe for transcode-less screenshotting
            OR
            >YOLO export graphic canvas and encode to screenshot

            I guarantee it'll be the latter, and when you're there, JXL will outperform AVIF in the task.

            Again, it's always these half-assed reasons they pull out of their ass as to why JXL is inferior to AVIF.
            It's just video and animations that AV1 (not AVIF) has an edge, that's it, deal with it.
            Anybody claiming anything else is a Google-shill or, at the very minimum, not trying to be objective.

            , now frick off.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            m8, all the have to do is create an "app" that extracts avif images out of AV1 videos and jpeg xl will become as DOA as FLIF. I GUARANTEE it.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Has anyone actually implemented this for any of the video-based image formats?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I'm not aware of any notable implementation. The only actual use for it is fast generation of thumbnails.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I'm not aware of any notable implementation. The only actual use for it is fast generation of thumbnails.

            It hasn't happened because making a GUI version of a keyframe extractor isn't easy. This is probably something only the top 1% of mobile devs are capable of.

            The interoperability of AV1 keyframes and AVIF images is INSANE though. Think about it for a minute, NOBODY HAS TO ENCODE ANYTHING.

            To be fair this is going to be subject to keyframe interval FOR NOW. Animated AVIF shouldn't have any problem storing delta frames though...

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >NOBODY HAS TO ENCODE ANYTHING.
            So what, we had Motion JPEG before, it's nothing special.
            Screenshots of videos are exceptional, neither moving video nor static picture was explicitly designed around this, because that would be moronic, but that's exactly what you're advocating for, shillDAIZ.

            Just give up, Google, the earlier you embrace JXL the better for everyone, not just you, everyone knows it's inorganic and wrong if the inferior static image format AVIF becomes the next JPG/PNG instead of JXL.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          What the frick are you talking about you shizo? Anyway shitty video screenshot quality is a huge underatted problem right now. Imagine how much worse it will get when 4K videos become a thing.

          A lot if image sources LITERALLY come from videos. Why would you NOT want to both:
          A) make screenshots lossless
          B) maintain low file sizes

          We are literally facing a situation where you can "have your cake and eat it too", per se.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            This is contingent on taking a proper screenshot of a video. Just because autists like us take proper screenshots through mpv or something doesn't mean most will. Most will simply take a screenshot with their phone's screenshot function or use the snipping tool.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            This anon knows what's up.
            And do you think developers will
            >There's a user video playing, better extract the AV1 keyframe for transcode-less screenshotting
            OR
            >YOLO export graphic canvas and encode to screenshot

            I guarantee it'll be the latter, and when you're there, JXL will outperform AVIF in the task.

            Again, it's always these half-assed reasons they pull out of their ass as to why JXL is inferior to AVIF.
            It's just video and animations that AV1 (not AVIF) has an edge, that's it, deal with it.
            Anybody claiming anything else is a Google-shill or, at the very minimum, not trying to be objective.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            NOPE, that's literally the best part. AV1 video is FULL of AVIF images. All you have to do is extract them. Neat huh?

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      I create SVG plots with thousands of data points and a handful of colors and tried all sorts of different lossless formats to rasterize it, and it boiled down to something like:
      >PNG 2.1MB
      >WEBP 1.8MB
      >AVIF 1.2MB
      >JXL 1.0MB
      I was equally open to AVIF and JXL, but JXL won me over as the future-proof lossless format after those tests.

  6. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Actually instead of spamming a bunch of pics the url is here
    https://www.pixiv.net/en/artworks/68641914

  7. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The fricking mental gymnastics AOM shills try to convince people to go through

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      You think you're better than us? You shill for microsoft.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      MPEG is worse and greedier organization you have 0 idea or MPEGlowie shills

  8. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    >convert your dicks folder
    no wonder you recommend rust crap

  9. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I wish my phone would save photos in JXL
    There's also one JXL viewer on F-Droid but it's unusably bare-bones

  10. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Isn't lossless AVIF screenshots from AV1 keyframes overrated? It won't be often that I want to take a screenshot exactly at a keyframe

  11. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    for me its webp

  12. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    JPEG-XL comrades, your strength is needed.
    https://pypi.org/project/jxlpy/

  13. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I seriously do not understand people that shit on jpegxl when it can substitute all other image formats and achieve the smallest possible size while staying lossless.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Jxl is better in theory, avif is better in practice.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        how so? from what I see jpegxl supports multithreaded while avif does not, it provides smaller size and keeps going down with each update

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Avif has hardware acceleration, you can practicially 1:1 rip it from AV1 videos without recompression and it is already supported everywhere. Nobody gives a shit about the 5-10% bigger file size compared to jxl because storage is cheap.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            so what you're saying is that jpegxl is better because it achieves a smaller size. I guess it wins, then
            >already supported everywhere
            just need to add back support. you know browsers dropped the flag because they were paid to do so. there's no reason to drop support for better things and keep shit that no one uses like Pocket
            >storage is cheap
            it's because of homosexuals like you that everything is so fricking bloated nowadays

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >it's because of homosexuals like you that everything is so fricking bloated nowadays
            Oh no the 5kb bigger image size I'm gonna die of bloat. Meanwhile popular websites load 5mb of external javascript and another 2mb external fonts.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >fricking bloated
            Putting multiple encoders into every software is just as bloated. The real world has already decided on an image format and its gonna be avif.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >The real world has already decided on an image format and its gonna be avif
            you could just say you don't keep up with the news

            But they are the majority of images that exist
            [...]
            You brought no argument to the table, nobody cares about your slightly smaller image size
            [...]
            ffmpeg

            >You brought no argument to the table

            I seriously do not understand people that shit on jpegxl when it can substitute all other image formats and achieve the smallest possible size while staying lossless.

            how so? from what I see jpegxl supports multithreaded while avif does not, it provides smaller size and keeps going down with each update

            so what you're saying is that jpegxl is better because it achieves a smaller size. I guess it wins, then
            >already supported everywhere
            just need to add back support. you know browsers dropped the flag because they were paid to do so. there's no reason to drop support for better things and keep shit that no one uses like Pocket
            >storage is cheap
            it's because of homosexuals like you that everything is so fricking bloated nowadays

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >You brought no argument to the table
            As already mentioned nobody cares about slightly smaller file size and that's all you are babbling about. Hardware acceleration is obviously better than multithreating

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >still denying everything
            kek, schizo af. enjoy your bloat, lack of brain cells and lack of evolution. just rot in a swinging chair

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Kek, most sane jxl shill

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I'm not a shill, I just want less bloat by having 1 format for everything and the lowest possible size while lossless. I try to debloat everything I own, including myself, hence why I'm not fat, unlike avif shills

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            You do realize there are at least 50 other image formats which are all even smaller than jxl right? Just because something is good in theory doesn't make it good in practice.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            list them and why are they better than jxl? I will take the one that supports the most amount of things while providing the smallest possible lossless image and doesn't consume more power than normal
            also explain why you lied according to

            >Avif has hardware acceleration
            It does not. There's no AVIF with hardware acceleration in use anywhere. Don't forget that web JXL decompresses faster even if you had used hardware accelerated AVIF decoding due to decoding while streaming.
            >you can practicially 1:1 rip it from AV1 videos without recompression
            Definitely not "practically".
            >it is already supported everywhere
            Correct.
            >Nobody gives a shit about the 5-10% bigger file size
            Wrong.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >you can practicially 1:1 rip it from AV1 videos without recompression and it is already supported everywhere.
            Anime screenshots are not the only kind of image that exists.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            But they are the majority of images that exist

            >avif is older
            >more time to implement
            >jpegxl was present in most browsers, got remove, only available in nightly as flag, Safari has support, proving there's money involved
            [...]
            5kb leads to 5MB, which leads to 5GB
            >5mb of external javascript and another 2mb external fonts
            you could have just said you're a moron that doesn't block this by default, uses shit websites and enjoys bloated laggy mess and still deny that jpegxl has better things going for it

            You brought no argument to the table, nobody cares about your slightly smaller image size

            >you can practicially 1:1 rip it from AV1 videos
            Using what?

            ffmpeg

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >you can practicially 1:1 rip it from AV1 videos
            Using what?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Avif has hardware acceleration
            It does not. There's no AVIF with hardware acceleration in use anywhere. Don't forget that web JXL decompresses faster even if you had used hardware accelerated AVIF decoding due to decoding while streaming.
            >you can practicially 1:1 rip it from AV1 videos without recompression
            Definitely not "practically".
            >it is already supported everywhere
            Correct.
            >Nobody gives a shit about the 5-10% bigger file size
            Wrong.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >It does not. There's no AVIF with hardware acceleration in use anywhere.
            False information
            >Don't forget that web JXL decompresses faster even if you had used hardware accelerated AVIF decoding due to decoding while streaming.
            False information

            But nice try jxlshill

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >False information
            Provide example.
            >False information
            Hardware decoding does not do streamed decoding, you require the full image before you can even begin.

            If jxl doesn't get hardware acceleration ASAP, it's DOOOMED. Plain and simple. The chinks have made hardware acceleration MANDATORY not optional by using anemic SoCs in 2024 and for the foreseeable future. A53 is still being used, look it up.

            [5.1/H-1-17] MUST have at least 1 hardware image decoder supporting AVIF Baseline Profile.

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

            You keep posting that FUD and lies all the time. Android 14 does not require hardware acceleration and you're misinterpreting the docs, but at this point you're doing it intentionally, since your mistake has been previously pointed out to you.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            If jxl doesn't get hardware acceleration ASAP, it's DOOOMED. Plain and simple. The chinks have made hardware acceleration MANDATORY not optional by using anemic SoCs in 2024 and for the foreseeable future. A53 is still being used, look it up.

            [5.1/H-1-17] 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

        What does this even mean besides "I ran out of arguments in favor of avif so I'll just make a blanket claim about it being 'more practical' even though JXL is very practical already and beats avif on just about every metric?"

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >JXL is very practical already
          You can literally use it in one program on one operating system how is that practical already? Avif can be used on 95% of all media devices.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      It is just one schizo doing it ignore him

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      What does this even mean besides "I ran out of arguments in favor of avif so I'll just make a blanket claim about it being 'more practical' even though JXL is very practical already and beats avif on just about every metric?"

      If jxl is so good then why does nobody use it? Avif is already widely used by a lot of websites but I have not seen a single jxl image anywhere outside of jxl shill threads yet.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        JXL has no browser support. The reason is political, not technical.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          The encoding patent is owned by microsoft you dumb frick.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >avif is older
        >more time to implement
        >jpegxl was present in most browsers, got remove, only available in nightly as flag, Safari has support, proving there's money involved

        >it's because of homosexuals like you that everything is so fricking bloated nowadays
        Oh no the 5kb bigger image size I'm gonna die of bloat. Meanwhile popular websites load 5mb of external javascript and another 2mb external fonts.

        5kb leads to 5MB, which leads to 5GB
        >5mb of external javascript and another 2mb external fonts
        you could have just said you're a moron that doesn't block this by default, uses shit websites and enjoys bloated laggy mess and still deny that jpegxl has better things going for it

  14. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >frick you anon

  15. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    when can I post it on IQfy?

  16. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    it is more than obvious there's something sketchy about why only Safari, Cromite, nightly Firefox and meme brosers support jxl, considering it is the obvious choice. could just be because it's still on phase 4 of development, while avif is older, so completely developed. once jpegxl is done, it will be the standard

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      No hardware acceleration kills things, APNG is living breathing proof of this. Any android 14 phone that can hardware decode AV1 video can hardware decode AVIF images. See post above you.

      All that's missing is a keyframe extraction "app" for the normalgays. That's literally it.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        I don't understand why it is necessary, since it manages to be faster than most other codecs with. anyways, it should be fairly easy to implement

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Chinks. Software encoding/decoding jxl will only work if everyone on the planet buys an iPhone 15 pro max.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            nothing you just said makes sense

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Chinese phones make up like 80℅ of all phones on the planet. Most of them have shitty CPUs. Either encoding/decoding jxl will be slow as balls or battery life will suffer on those phones. They NEED hardware acceleration.

            >False information
            Provide example.
            >False information
            Hardware decoding does not do streamed decoding, you require the full image before you can even begin.
            [...]
            You keep posting that FUD and lies all the time. Android 14 does not require hardware acceleration and you're misinterpreting the docs, but at this point you're doing it intentionally, since your mistake has been previously pointed out to you.

            The point is jxl without hardware acceleration = stinky doo doo image format.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >The point is jxl without hardware acceleration = stinky doo doo image format.
            huh

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Now run that same benchmark on a phone with cortex A53 cores. Also don't be a fricking pussy, use 4K images not 480p ones.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I wouldn't even know where to buy such outdated hardware besides eBay. The A53 is older now than the PDP-11 was when the IBM PC came out.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            these stupid c**ts saying you need to be able to run it in a phone from 2001 are the same ones saying "who cares about 2MB more". all morons

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Nice, you entirely ignored all counterarguments and just reiterated your previous post.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >I don't understand why it is necessary, since it manages to be faster than most other codecs with. anyways, it should be fairly easy to implement
          Multithreaded might be faster than singlethreaded hardware acceleration but you forget that multithreaded hardware acceleration also exists which is just not implemented yet.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Hi pixDAIZ

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Why are so obsessed with this particular troony? Does he have like a really really big wiener or something?

          Anyway the last failed disaster of the jpeg xl creator was flif. You know, I don't recall that thing getting hardware acceleration...

          You think there might be a pattern?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >I don't recall that thing getting hardware acceleration...
            neither of jpg or png has hardware acceleration on the vast majority of platforms

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            WRONG. If you look at what asiaticbench measures hardware accelerated jpeg encoding/decoding is one of those metrics. Haven't you ever wondered why say an iphone se can browse the web for like 10 hours on a 7 watt hour battery despite the TDP of the SoC being like 5W?

            The screen probably uses the most power, the rest is mostly just the jpeg ASIC.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            asic isn't hardware support

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            LOLWUT? They literally consume like 1 milliwatt encoding/decoding things. Can't get any more "hardware" accelerated than that. The GPU can also be used and free up CPU resources but it's a dirty solution.

            >neither of jpg or png has hardware acceleration on the vast majority of platforms
            You have no idea how these formats work do you? There is no hardware acceleration for them because they don't need it. They were developed with what was already available on hardware at that time. jpg and png use algorithms that were already available and fast. AV1 got developed on theory and then the hardware for it was built afterwards.

            see

            WRONG. If you look at what asiaticbench measures hardware accelerated jpeg encoding/decoding is one of those metrics. Haven't you ever wondered why say an iphone se can browse the web for like 10 hours on a 7 watt hour battery despite the TDP of the SoC being like 5W?

            The screen probably uses the most power, the rest is mostly just the jpeg ASIC.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            having an asic is "hardware support" in the same sense that having a cpu is "hardware support". it's not. that's software.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            What the frick are you talking, mein fuhrer? Isn't "hardware acceleration" primarily meant to:
            A.) Free up CPU resources.
            B.) Consume very little power.

            A and B apply to ASICs...

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            having dedicated silicon would be hardware support. you can put a jxl decoder on the asic without hardware modification, hence it's software.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            You're confusing ASICs with FGPAs. The former can't be modified.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            guess the brain s///'d the terms since i can't imagine anybody would put jpeg-specific silicon in any consumer hardware just to save a tiny little bit of decoding while rendering horrendously complex web documents. also the fact that apple does ship fpgas for similar tasks.
            error aside, i can't find any evidence of iphones having jpeg hardware acceleration. it would make sense for av1/vp8/jxl, but not really for jpeg.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            10 hour battery life on a 7 watt hour battery regarding a 5W TDP SoC would literally IMPOSSIBLE without jpeg hardware acceleration.

            The proof is in geekbench. jpeg hardware acceleration is literally one of the things it measures. That's why anyone with 2 functioning brain cells hates this stupid "cpu benchmark" so much.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >10 hour battery life on a 7 watt hour battery regarding a 5W TDP SoC would literally IMPOSSIBLE without jpeg hardware acceleration
            ??? are you fricking serious?
            It's an image codec from the 80s, computers back then had no problems decoding jpeg images and they didn't have any hardware accelleration either
            >jpeg hardware acceleration is literally one of the things it measures.
            you must be tripping, there isn't any trace of this

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Haven't you ever wondered why say an iphone se can browse the web for like 10 hours on a 7 watt hour battery despite the TDP of the SoC being like 5W?
            yeah, maybe because decoding a large jpeg image in software on a modern smartphone takes literally 2 milliseconds of cpu time

            Don't take my word for it, look up the asiaticbench results. jpeg hardware acceleration is literally right fricking there. Why do you think people hate this "cpu" benchmark so much?

            YES JPG is ancient as frick but isn't a phone being able to decode it at 300 MP/s a little bit suspicious? I've personally tried encoding x265 with various phones and NONE of them can encode 1080p video at more than 1-3 FPS on the default medium preset. Meanwhile my stinkpad from 10 years ago does like 10 FPS.

            Don't drink the "ARM is just as good as x86!" kool-aids. Phone CPUs are ANEMIC as FRICK.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Don't take my word for it, look up the asiaticbench results.
            I literally told you "it's not a thing, I don't see it"
            and you reply with this
            how fricking braindead are you?
            >isn't a phone being able to decode it at 300 MP/s a little bit suspicious?
            no it's not, it's a very basic compression alghoritm that was quick enough for computers made 40 years ago that had like 50.000 times less processing power
            > I've personally tried encoding x265 with various phones and NONE of them can encode 1080p video at more than 1-3 FPS on the default medium preset.
            ...you are literally comparing decoding one of the most simple codecs out there, to ENCODING video with ONE OF THE MOST ADVANCED CODECS OUT THERE
            you are crazy
            >Meanwhile my stinkpad from 10 years ago does like 10 FPS.
            you aren't accounting for the fact that x265 has probably 0 arm related optimizations (literally 0 use cases of using it on a smarphone) while modern jpeg decoders do
            and that alone can make a massive difference, dav1d has often got arm optimizations that improved decode performance 2x
            it's like saying man!!! a gamecube can run mario kart double dash at 60 fps just fine but a phone from a couple of years ago really struggles emulating it!!! yeah of course jackass, it's not a fair comparison

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >x265 has probably 0 arm related optimizations
            https://forum.doom9.org/archive/index.php/t-174855.html
            "We have some limited ARM Neon optimization (x265sourcecommonarm), but this is not anywhere near as complete as our x86 SIMD optimization. We've had discussions with various people at various times about doing a full optimization effort, but as of today this hasn't bubbled up to the top of the priority list for our customers or our strategic hardware partners. Of course, x265 is open source, and contributions are always welcomed."
            yup, confirmed
            runs like shit on arm because you are the only person on earth doing it

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Haven't you ever wondered why say an iphone se can browse the web for like 10 hours on a 7 watt hour battery despite the TDP of the SoC being like 5W?
            yeah, maybe because decoding a large jpeg image in software on a modern smartphone takes literally 2 milliseconds of cpu time

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >neither of jpg or png has hardware acceleration on the vast majority of platforms
            You have no idea how these formats work do you? There is no hardware acceleration for them because they don't need it. They were developed with what was already available on hardware at that time. jpg and png use algorithms that were already available and fast. AV1 got developed on theory and then the hardware for it was built afterwards.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >There is no hardware acceleration for them because they don't need it.
            Smartest thing you've ever said. Now try extrapolating that knowledge.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Imagine being a dumb jxlshill not even knowing how jpg and png work. You can't make this shit up.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >the jpeg xl creator
            Creators.

            And one of them did the lossless portion of WebP, a format currently seeing massive adoption, for better or worse.
            Yes, I see a pattern. Formats that can substitute both PNG's and JPEG's win.

  17. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    is it even better than avif?

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Only in noisy photographs by like 10℅. It fricking BLOWS at encoding chinese cartoons though. The jxl shills will never tell you this.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      In theory yes. In practice no. 90% of the images on the internet are anime pictures and avif is much better at that than jxl.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        nobody rips keyframes

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Because there's no simple GUI yet.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            people take pictures of their screen with a phone
            avif unfortunately can't genocide 70% of the population
            i'd be all-in otherwise

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Nobody does it YET. As soon as AV1 is more widespread it's just a matter of time.

  18. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Does anyone have that webm of 1KB av1 keyframes? Can't deny how freakishly small avif images can be. Progressive decoding doesn't really seem necessary with avif.

  19. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    gif
    webp
    jpg
    bmp
    apng
    ico
    tiff
    jpeg2000
    all need to be DELETED
    and add avif / jxl / svg / png to every browser.
    Arguably remove png as well
    problem solved

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      AFAIK jxl doesn't have hardware acceleration support yet, that's a really important thing for all the poorgays which make up the bulk of the internet. It's officially going to be DOA without it.

      I don't see the point of newer image formats. Are people living in the wee dark ages of the internet again? Hell no. Net speed is insanely fast. Drive space is frick huge and getting larger by the year. You can store an insanely amount of images on even a 2TB drive with zero fancy "new" formats involved. This whole WEBP or JPEGXL thing is a joke. Hint; a lossless image format already exists and has been round since 1996; TIFF. Fun fact; Printing shops require it or .PDF or bare minimum JPEG. Nothing else is acceptable. So if you want insane large print done of say some AI image you gotta play by the print shop's rules.

      Bandwidth you mongoloid.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >Bandwidth you mongoloid.
        Both are smaller than jpg and png which have been used perfectly fine for websites for 30 years. Bandwidth is not gonna develope backwards you fricking moron.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >t. mouth breather that thinks just because his parents bought gigabit internet it means all websites can now suddenly afford to send him content at gigabit speeds

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            we might as well go ahead and bloat up websites even more, then. why have them load as we scroll or load parts of the videos as we watch? just load up 500MB of JS and 20GB of 4K videos with 12MB thumbnails all at the same time and then watch it load at crawl speeds even though you have gigabit internet
            I guess Windows 12 will require 500GB storage minimum, 500GB more of updates, 32BG RAM, Ryzen 9/i9 @ 3.6Ghz and 2 3060s. you're not poor, are you? it shouldn't be a problem, since it's the standard nowadays. keep up with the times grandpa

            You are shitting yourself for 5kb more when most websites are literally a thousand times bigger than that. The problem here will never be avif vs jxl but megabytes of javascript and fonts. You are just looking for excuses because you can't come up with actual advantages. Putting 10 different encoders into every software is just as much bloat and avif is already widely used so deal with it.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            ACK-tually animated avif replaces a lot of that javascript bloat. All those fancy stupid cpu intensive animations that take up 1GB of RAM can be converted into 100-500KB animated avif files. This is why you see the following requirement for all new android 14 phones:

            [5.1/H-1-2] MUST support 6 instances of 8-bit (SDR) hardware video decoder sessions (AVC, HEVC, VP9, AV1 or later) in any codec combination running concurrently with 3 sessions at 1080p resolution@30 fps and 3 sessions at 4k resolution@30fps, unless AV1. AV1 codecs are only required to support 1080p resolution, but are still required to support 6 instances at 1080p30fps.

            6 is probably not enough IMHO, it should have been 12. That said 6 is still pretty usable, MAYBE. jpeg xl can't even replace GIF LMFAO.

            >Thank you for making the admission that jpeg xl literally can't succeed without hardware acceleration at least when it comes to smartphones.
            ...that's not what I said though, my dear pixDAIZ
            in some cases, yes, it can be an issue
            but there are definitely cases where this isn't an issue, or a minor one at best

            Right, which is why I said that jpeg xl without hardware acceleration would only work if everyone had an iPhone 15 pro max. That's not realistic, like AT ALL.

            I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if 50% of all android phones on the planet we're standing on had A53 CPUs.

            >listen... I'm a jpeg xl shill myself
            Then stop posting outdated charts.

            >lossless
            Literally irrelevant for most internet usage.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Cope

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            AVIF compression improved THAT much? Impressive.

            Also if you had been paying attention to this thread you would have realized that there's already like a gorrillion AVIF images hidden in AV1 video files.

            All you have to do is extract them.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous
          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            10X faster soft encode was literally the #1 reason why anyone would use jxl over avif. That gap is closing now.

            RIP jxl, we hardly knew ye

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >That gap is closing now.
            Made me chuckle

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Look at speed 5. jxl no longers offers 10X faster encodes anymore.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            When did it ever? Those AVIF shill charts suggest the gap has widened, if anything.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Black person, I block everything on my browser on every website and unblock as needed, so for me websites are small af. and I hate bloat so much that I've been putting the info from infographic images into .md files and I shorten the info as much as I can just to save 1 extra byte
            it's the people like you that enabled the net and systems to be bloated af

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Nobody gives a shit how YOU use the internet.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            nobody gives a shit about how you use it either, and I'm doing better than you, your peers and your b***h, so why you talkin bout mah shit?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Because 99,99% people don't block javascript and try to autistically debloat everything.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            cool, nobody gives a shit how 99.99% of people uses the internet
            I ain't never stand still, b***h I'm nomadic
            I ain't never close my eyes, b***h I'm nomadic
            I ain't tryna be in one place, I relocated
            I just run it through the wire, keep it automatic

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >nobody gives a shit how 99.99% of people uses the internet
            The absolute state of jxl shills

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            it's not shilling when it's a fact it's better. you still have to explain this

            >using squoosh.app
            >38.8kb png
            >299% increase with lossless avif maximum effort
            >28% loss with lossless jpegxl maximum effort

            and this

            >opened image in GIMP
            >export as avif
            >no known file extension
            >use imagemagick
            >38.8kb png turns into 52.1kb avif
            explain yourselves

            you can even try it yourself

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >it's a fact it's better
            Better in theory, worse in practice. odt is also better than docx but guess which one is widely used.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          we might as well go ahead and bloat up websites even more, then. why have them load as we scroll or load parts of the videos as we watch? just load up 500MB of JS and 20GB of 4K videos with 12MB thumbnails all at the same time and then watch it load at crawl speeds even though you have gigabit internet
          I guess Windows 12 will require 500GB storage minimum, 500GB more of updates, 32BG RAM, Ryzen 9/i9 @ 3.6Ghz and 2 3060s. you're not poor, are you? it shouldn't be a problem, since it's the standard nowadays. keep up with the times grandpa

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Poorgays are the ones late to the hardware acceleration party to begin with. I.e. your average jeet phone has to decode AV1 in software.
        JPEG XL has an advantage here.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Not really, they sign up for NVMOs that give away shitty phones for free all the time. Soon they'll include AV1 hardware decoding along with the venerable A53 CPU cores.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Soon they'll include AV1
            After five years, wow. Guess that puts a dent on the whole DOA hypothesis.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Yeah yeah, android updates takes forever. This isn't new.

            >Don't take my word for it, look up the asiaticbench results.
            I literally told you "it's not a thing, I don't see it"
            and you reply with this
            how fricking braindead are you?
            >isn't a phone being able to decode it at 300 MP/s a little bit suspicious?
            no it's not, it's a very basic compression alghoritm that was quick enough for computers made 40 years ago that had like 50.000 times less processing power
            > I've personally tried encoding x265 with various phones and NONE of them can encode 1080p video at more than 1-3 FPS on the default medium preset.
            ...you are literally comparing decoding one of the most simple codecs out there, to ENCODING video with ONE OF THE MOST ADVANCED CODECS OUT THERE
            you are crazy
            >Meanwhile my stinkpad from 10 years ago does like 10 FPS.
            you aren't accounting for the fact that x265 has probably 0 arm related optimizations (literally 0 use cases of using it on a smarphone) while modern jpeg decoders do
            and that alone can make a massive difference, dav1d has often got arm optimizations that improved decode performance 2x
            it's like saying man!!! a gamecube can run mario kart double dash at 60 fps just fine but a phone from a couple of years ago really struggles emulating it!!! yeah of course jackass, it's not a fair comparison

            I'm not convinced, there's just something fishy about being able to encode jpeg at 300 MP/s but only being able to encode x265 at 1-3 FPS.

            I would completely believe something like 8 MP/s when you factor in how comically weak phone ARM CPUs are. Remember that apple has to push 30-40 watts through their ARM macbooks to cheat in benchmarks. Phones can't do that else the battery would explode.

            BUT 300 MP/s on an ARM CPU that's about as fast as a pentium 4? HMMMMMMMMM

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >I'm not convinced, there's just something fishy about being able to encode jpeg at 300 MP/s but only being able to encode x265 at 1-3 FPS.
            are you even reading my replies???? I already told you that's way beyond moronation
            it's like saying "there's something fishy about a car being able to go 300 km/h on the highway but failing to tow a 20 ton trailer
            you not only are comparing decoding to ENCODING (which is already expected to be 1000x slower no matter the codec, but you are comparing one of the most braindead codecs out there, to one of the most advanced ones that exist
            what's so hard to understand about that? encoding a single frame with x265 no matter which preset or crf setting is already thousands of times more cpu intensive than decoding a picture with ANY codec, let alone jpeg, are you on crack?
            also you didn't account for the "x265 sucks ass on arm while jpeg decoders don't" argument at all, i'm probably wasting my time with these replies because you are reading none of it, you'll just reply with "ye but izz fishy!" once again, proving yet again that you are completely moronic
            >I would completely believe something like 8 MP/s when you factor in how comically weak phone ARM CPUs are
            ...no???
            they aren't comically weak, and 8 mp/s is literally something a digital camera from 2005 can do, and probably even go beyond that
            you keep talking about jpeg like it's some crazy good advanced codec we got last year
            >BUT 300 MP/s on an ARM CPU that's about as fast as a pentium 4?
            you are completely fricking delusional if you think a modern smartphone is as powerful as a pentium 4, there's no way you can actually think that

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >they aren't comically weak, and 8 mp/s is literally something a digital camera from 2005 can do
            oh wait, I forgot you were talking about decode and not encode
            8 mp/s decode speed is what you would expect from ANY device made after 2010? holy shit you have some serious brain damage

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            You are one of the dumbest Black folk make some of the dumbest posts I've ever had the unfortunate mispleasure of reading.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >t. geekbench shill

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        things get hardware acceleration after they're adopted, not before
        and it decodes like 1000 times faster than avif does (both without hardware accel) so avif NEEDS it while jxl does not

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >decodes like 1000 times faster than avif does
          listen... I'm a jpeg xl shill myself... but why spread lies like this
          I challenge you to find me a single data point where jxl is significantly faster than avif (in most cases it's actually slower), let alone 1000 times faster
          not even regular jpeg is 1000 times faster than avif probably

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Yup this. Thank you for making the admission that jpeg xl literally can't succeed without hardware acceleration at least when it comes to smartphones.

            IMHO it should be a FELONY to sell android phones with cortex A53 CPU cores in 2024 but I guess the US will become part of China or something soon?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Thank you for making the admission that jpeg xl literally can't succeed without hardware acceleration at least when it comes to smartphones.
            ...that's not what I said though, my dear pixDAIZ
            in some cases, yes, it can be an issue
            but there are definitely cases where this isn't an issue, or a minor one at best

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >listen... I'm a jpeg xl shill myself
            Then stop posting outdated charts.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            first of all, avif isn't even on that chart
            second, a 5x speedup isn't enough to make it 1000 times faster than avif

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >listen... I'm a jpeg xl shill myself..
            my fellow white people, we must accept more immigration to save our country

  20. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I don't see the point of newer image formats. Are people living in the wee dark ages of the internet again? Hell no. Net speed is insanely fast. Drive space is frick huge and getting larger by the year. You can store an insanely amount of images on even a 2TB drive with zero fancy "new" formats involved. This whole WEBP or JPEGXL thing is a joke. Hint; a lossless image format already exists and has been round since 1996; TIFF. Fun fact; Printing shops require it or .PDF or bare minimum JPEG. Nothing else is acceptable. So if you want insane large print done of say some AI image you gotta play by the print shop's rules.

  21. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I use it to archive my backups on cloud storage. Savings are massive and there is no quality loss.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      you omitted the most important part
      you can transcode jpegxl back to jpeg with no quality loss
      so archival is one scenario where avif is useless but jpeg xl is literally free storage space with little downsides

  22. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >opened image in GIMP
    >export as avif
    >no known file extension
    >use imagemagick
    >38.8kb png turns into 52.1kb avif
    explain yourselves

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      avif apologists been real quiet since these posts

      >using squoosh.app
      >38.8kb png
      >299% increase with lossless avif maximum effort
      >28% loss with lossless jpegxl maximum effort

      next thing you're gonna say you need to use a special converter only found in the deep web to convert images to the max

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Because it's false information. I tried with multiple images and all avifs and jxls were about the same size and smaller than the pngs. The main difference I noticed is that jxl takes like 5x as long to generate. Not sure what your problem with Gimp is maybe you are on an outdated version at least it works for me on 2.10

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >it's a fact it's better
          Better in theory, worse in practice. odt is also better than docx but guess which one is widely used.

          >website literally makes a smaller jxl
          >in the same ammount of time or less
          >jxl is still in phase 4 of development while avif is already done and yet jxl proved to be better
          >clearly not implemented everywhere yet because development hasn't finished
          >hurrdurr it's fake it's bad hue hue shit and piss
          take your fricking meds

  23. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >using squoosh.app
    >38.8kb png
    >299% increase with lossless avif maximum effort
    >28% loss with lossless jpegxl maximum effort

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >28% loss with lossless jpegxl

      ???????? wtf are you talking about

      btw of course you had to ignore webp which is the only modern codec good at lossless compression

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        use the link and see for yourself you stupid c**t
        and I didn't ignore webp, it simply does not fit the thread. but yes, I had a look and it's a 10% decrease at lossless max effort, so jxl is still better

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >use the link and see for yourself you stupid c**t
          lossless is lossless
          if there's loss you just didn't encode it properly

  24. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    jxlbros I don't feel so well...

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      now do lossless for both
      wtf am I saying, you'll fake the results

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Nobody uses lossless on the web especially when you can compress it down to 15% of the file size without barely any quality loss with avif. You are just making up unrealistic scenarios. This is exactly what better in theory worse in practice means.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >use the link and see for yourself you stupid c**t
          lossless is lossless
          if there's loss you just didn't encode it properly

          >reply has nothing to do with what I said
          I must be talking to bots. Either that or you got a screw loose wtf

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            ??? no, you are the one that's got a screw loose
            I've been talking about
            >28% loss with lossless jpegxl maximum effort
            all the time, you are the one that's replying with shit that has nothing to do with it

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            read the whole thing homie, not just the last thing. this is why you failed the exam
            frick you, I'm going to bed. you avif c**ts really are low IQ

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >avif c**ts
            I didn't talk about avif or jxl quality/efficiency at all
            all i said is "28% loss with lossless jxl" is meaningless
            wtf is your problem lol

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Your posting style is extremely obvious pixy.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      NOOO! You have to encode noisy camera photos in every test so people won't find out about how dogshit jxl is with vectorized images!

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >lossless.jxl (139.7 kB)

  25. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Why aren't there image formats that are just color matrix's? wouldn't that be lossless?

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Raw or bitmaps. I take it you have no idea how pixels are actually displayed on your screen.

  26. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    .webp

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