Quantcast
[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / g / ic / jp / lit / sci / tg / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports / report a bug ] [ 4plebs / archived.moe / rbt ]

Due to resource constraints, /g/ and /tg/ will no longer be archived or available. Other archivers continue to archive these boards.Become a Patron!

/g/ - Technology


View post   

[ Toggle deleted replies ]
File: 815 KB, 1057x640, Capture.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
64797738 No.64797738 [Reply] [Original] [archived.moe] [rbt]

why browsers don't upgrade their support for the newest image compression formats just like they have done with video formats?

>> No.64797745

javascript is intrusive

>> No.64797750

>javascript

>> No.64797765
File: 1.13 MB, 2092x2092, JPEG.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
64797765

>>64797738
>jpeg is bad
>Uses shitty compression and blames the file type
Okay.

>> No.64797776

>>64797738
>javascript

>> No.64797782

>>64797738
There already are.
BPG is literally the worst of them all and isn't supported by anyone.

Higher chance of JpegXR becoming a standard than BPG.

>> No.64797794

>>64797738
>javascript

>> No.64797805

>>64797738
>javascript
found your problem, maybe if they used something better... like flash...

>> No.64797817

>>64797738
because all replacements have their "default" values in-between the visual quality valleys and most of their artifacts are really, really shitty

Also why javascript? can't fucking write a decoder?

>> No.64797820

>>64797738
>javascript
I'll pass.

>> No.64797823
File: 140 KB, 1920x1080, maxresdefault.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
64797823

everyone knows FLIF is the best successor to JPG

see
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_h5gC3EzlJg
http://flif.info/lossy.html

>> No.64797827

>>64797782
JPEG XR is shit though. I rather have something based of Daala or AV1.

>> No.64797839

>>64797738
WebP
e
b
P

>> No.64797842
File: 217 KB, 1240x686, flif_vs_jpg.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
64797842

FLIF vs JPG

>> No.64797849

>javascript
no

>> No.64797851

>>64797839
>WebP
see >>64797823

>> No.64797853

>>64797827
I know it is, but
- It's better than BPG
- Has a higher chance of becoming a standard than BPG

This thread wasn't asking for alternatives, it was trying to shill a terrible format that no one wants.

>> No.64797866

>>64797842
That should have been a 7 color PNG.

>> No.64797872

http://wyohknott.github.io/image-formats-comparison

>> No.64797884

>>64797851
They're not even in the same range.
Of course FLIF would look better. There are 17890 vs 2224 bytes...

>> No.64797897

>>64797884
watch the beginning of the video

>> No.64797899

who /.png/ here?

>> No.64797915

We know, we have tons of viable replacements for it.
But until everybody starts using those formats by default, jpeg will be eternal

>> No.64797920

>>64797884
what happens in the web is that images consistently get saved, reuploaded and reencoded before it reaches you.
that's their lifecycle.
FLIF is the only one that addresses this issue

>> No.64797928

>>64797884
>>64797823
FLIFhas progressive decoding support but images look like shit when partially decoded compared to other formats with lossy compression. It's only interesting in lossless compression anv even then it's beaten by Daala, VP9, AV1…

>> No.64797933

>>64797872
lacks some sort of SNR metric

>> No.64797947

>>64797897
>youtube

>> No.64797958
File: 426 KB, 684x2234, 1517781110-20180205.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
64797958

>>64797842
that's just zack being a piece of shit tho desu senpai
https://www.smbc-comics.com/comics/1517781110-20180205.png
original is around 743KB, it can be shrunk lossless to almost half of that, pic related

>> No.64797974

>>64797738
>js decoder
top kek

>> No.64797986

>>64797974
proof of concept
anyone could make an webassembly version if people showed an interest

>> No.64797999
File: 77 KB, 500x423, 1473465749511.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
64797999

>>64797738
Who gives a shit other than morons who have nothing better to do than obsess over mere kilobytes with use cases so banal and browser-bound that the idea of an image format that requires fucking third-party JavaScript just to view doesn't even phase them?

Videos aren't expected to be universally viewable on almost any device with a screen made in the last 25 years, they're far larger and more computationally expensive to the point that reducing the workload or the amount of space they consume far outweighs the potential detriment of making them incompatible with classes of devices that were never well equipped to view them in the first place.

>> No.64798006

Javascript isn't inherently bad. The problem is the lack of insight in the workings of the script due to many frontend developers opting for an UglifyJS deal where they remove all the whitespace making the code unreadable by anyone but autistic savants.

>> No.64798013

>>64797986
>that's just a proof of concept, anyone could make it even more incompatible and obfuscated if people showed an interest
this is literally you

>> No.64798101

>>64797738
My god, the one on the right. She's beautiful

>> No.64798106

Who cares? It works don't it? Must be or it wouldn't be still in use now. For all your long term archival shit just save them as Uncompressed Tiff format. That way you know least .tiff will be view able in 20+ yrs with zero image degradation. Photoshop makes doing this a easy thing. Batch mode is your friend, tell it folder A with .Jpegs, then select .tiff w/no compression, then output folder destination. it keeps all the image profile/color info so nothing gets lost.

>> No.64798168

>>64797765
are you fuckin dumb mate

>> No.64798243
File: 33 KB, 641x729, chrome programmer.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
64798243

>drag an image from chrome to the desktop
>it automatically saves in their autist webshit garbage format instead of proper PNG
>have to save as or use another browser, can't even turn that shit off

>> No.64798316

Reason a lot of Jpgs are shit is due to someone cranking up the compression factor (quality gets tossed out the window) or someone reduces the resolution from the source file or a combination of both. A proper photo must be 300 dpi at whatever resolution you need in order for it to look great. Pixels are just what the image is at screen res of 72dpi, so a lot of images you see are 3000 x 4000 pixels end only being 8x10 or smaller prints at 300 dpi. A poster quality photo (18x24) is least 112MB at 300 dpi. A 8x10 is 21mb. This is why a lot of so called "HR" pics are not really HR, the math and pixels don't lie. Wouldn't you like a nice quality poster of Taylor Swift to hang on your wall?

>> No.64798363

>>64798316
yes I would like

>> No.64798406

>>64797745
>>64797750
>>64797776
>>64797794
>>64797805
>>64797820
>>64797849
You people are retarded. The example uses javascript because the browser doesnt support BPG. Once it's supported it wont need javascript.

>> No.64798412

>>64797738
>javascript used to produce images
It's like someone said "Hey we're dynamically producing every single part of our webpage through javascript except for the images" and it gave some retard an idea for a new framework

>> No.64798420
File: 2.05 MB, 1011x3032, 1469309230745.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
64798420

Webp already won. FLIF almost made the cut but requires some gay javascript or something. Chrome and chrome derivatives support it natively.

ebay, netflix, and facebook already use it.

>> No.64798486

>>64798316
example; found a 70MP image of Taylor Swift Reputation album cover. Pixel dimensions are over 8000 each way. However the file size is only about 6mb. So that tells us that the compression factor has been cranked up pretty high on it. Properly it would be 200mb and at 300 dpi it would be 28 inch by 28 inch. Google image search used to tell you/give you option to see file size plus mp count. no longer the case, now you limited by mp count

>> No.64798613

>2018
>lossy anything

>> No.64798762
File: 109 KB, 588x823, 1515957805538.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
64798762

>>64797738
>javascript

>> No.64798772

>>64798613
1 minute of lossless 1080p60fps video: ~30GB
1 minute of lossless 16-bit 24KHz stereo Audio:10.5 MB
lossless 30 MP image: ~100MB

Yes the fuck we anything lossless you fucking mongrel

>> No.64798778

>>64797738
Learn English.

>> No.64798860

>>64797738
But how am I supposed to pronounce bpg?

>> No.64798875

>>64798772
>what is lossless compression
Granted for video it's not great but you can do a lot better for audio and images.

>> No.64798886

>>64798860
bee pee jee

>> No.64799305

>>64798875
Not really especially if the sound/image is complex. At best you can vectorize the image if it's a simple cartoon but that takes hours to do and is illegal to do if IP is present.

>> No.64799395

I demand we block jpg on /g/
>artifacting
>no transparency layer

.png is our new standard.

>> No.64799400

>>64797738
Because jpeg is supported by absolutely everything made in the last 25 years. Software of hardware. Chink shit or good brands.

There are dozens of better alternatives. JPEG2000, WebP, H264/HEVC still picture profile based formats like BPG and HEIF, etc. None of them will ever replace jpeg because the latter is both extremely ubiquitous and, lets face it, good enough at compressing images for 99% of use cases in a time where gigabit internet connections are now offered in residential neighborhoods.

But go and try to convince people about it. They will just come with even more formats, each one more efficient than the last, but still miss the fucking point.

>> No.64799405

>>64799395
why not just webp, it literally does both and supports transparency with lossy encoding

>> No.64799413

>>64799395
Also webp can do 24-bit animations as well, no shitty video player required and no 256-color palet GIFs anymore.

>> No.64799468

>>64797738
freetards are in charge

>> No.64799545

Does Firefox support WebP yet?

>> No.64799563

>>64797842
>Lossy Free Lossless Image Format
Oh I hate this.

>> No.64799581

>>64798772
You're confusing/conflating "Lossless" with "raw".

>> No.64799584

>>64799545
No, and the bug has been untouched for four months now. https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1294490

>> No.64799615

>>64798168
No, you are.
https://blog.mozilla.org/research/2013/10/17/studying-lossy-image-compression-efficiency/
https://research.mozilla.org/2014/07/15/mozilla-advances-jpeg-encoding-with-mozjpeg-2-0/

>> No.64799624

>>64797899
.png masterrace desu

>> No.64799629

>>64799581
Not really any different, lossless compression has always been the bane of the tech world because either:
a.) it requires a ton of cpu muscle to encode and decode
b.) usually only shrinks file size by ~10-20%

You'll never see some dipshit converting 4:4:4 pro-res to lossless hevc video for example.

>> No.64799635

>>64799615
>2014
I knew this would never catch on, webp still wipes the floor with it while taking less time to encode lmao.

>> No.64799650

>>64797738
>why browsers don't upgrade their support for the newest image compression formats
Because the newest JPEG tools outperform every single one of them.
It's not about the format, it's about the toolset. The newest image formats have recently developed toolsets that apply every new technique we know. Meanwhile, we keep still using JPEG utils written a decade ago. That's why they TYPICALLY outperform JPEG. But if you use modern JPEG encoders, you can get fantastic results. Here, try jpeg-recompress: https://github.com/danielgtaylor/jpeg-archive/

>> No.64799652

>>64799629
>10-20%
citation fucking needed.
Unless the only shit you're downloading is memebeat music you can get a consistent 30-50% savings on file size. Well mastered classical and most pop still gets you 30-50% savings with FLAC vs WAV.

And ProRes isn't even lossless lol. It's whatever Apple means by near lossless.

>> No.64799654

>>64799635
>still
It never did and still doesn't. Just look at the numbers. Fuck off, Google shill.

>> No.64799674

>>64799650
>https://github.com/danielgtaylor/jpeg-archive/issues
jesus

>>64799654
Except it does, webp still looks better visually than the sjw jpeg encoder will ever be able to. How much is mozilla corp paying you btw?

>> No.64799692

>>64799652
nope, there's a reason production goes from high-bitrate lossy encodes to again lossy encodes with lower bitrates before blu-ray discs touch anything.

>> No.64799697

>>64799674
>webp still looks better visually [sic]
Not by any objective metric.

>> No.64799707

>>64799697
Oh you mean PSNR, the thing nobody fucking uses since WW2?

>> No.64799735

>>64799707
PSNR is used in every codec comparison because it's objective, even if it reflects nothing about actual perceptual (if subjective) quality.
It's the only thing you can put in a slideshow to prove your codec is better than the competition.

>> No.64799746

>>64799707
So you admit I'm right and you don't have any objective metric to back yourself up and the best you can do is desperately commit an appeal to novelty fallacy? That's okay, I accept your conceding.

>> No.64799755

>>64799692
Because it's what the industry uses. Name any paper or literature that discusses the so-called technical superiority of converting lossy to lossy.

>> No.64799764

>>64799735
>>64799746
Wake me when SJW-corp has a VQMT comparison of their butchered turbo-jpg library and webp.

>> No.64799774

>>64799764
Okay, and you wake me when webp is relevant.

>> No.64799777

>>64799755
Right so my points still stands, nobody wants to bother with lossless compression except some shitty chinese cartoon group and 40 year old "audiophiles" that are literally going deaf but constantly deny it.

>> No.64799797

>>64799774
>"Netflix (S NFLX) has beguntouse the format within its new TV UIto load thumbnails more quickly. Facebook (S FB) isusing WebP to serve images within its mobile apps, and companies rangingfrom Tinderto Ebay (S EBAY)are experimentingwith WebP as well."

https://gigaom.com/2014/07/19/the-story-of-webp-how-google-wants-to-speed-up-the-web-one-image-at-a-time/

boy xander, you must get tons of HRT pills for making those posts :^)

>> No.64799829

>>64799797
>0.000000000001% usage next to the ubiquitous, widespread and omnipresent JPG
Wow, come back when you're relevant.

>> No.64799851

>>64799829
Would ypu look at that xander, they have your favorite beverage in webp :^)

https://www.google.com/search?as_st=y&hl=en&tbs=ift%3Awebp&tbm=isch&sa=1&ei=3aKLWvKmGo-yggeInKXIBA&q=soylent&oq=soylent

>> No.64799873

>>64799777
Nearly every Blu-ray has Dolby TrueHD which is lossless audio. Next.

>> No.64799874

>>64799851
Your mockery sounds desperate, anon.

>> No.64799902

>>64799873
Actually, DTS-HD is much more common than TrueHD, since the fallback codec (DTS) is better than the latter's (AC3).
Although TrueHD has been getting some more use lately thanks to Atmos.

>> No.64799921
File: 215 KB, 1034x839, Capture.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
64799921

>> No.64799927

>>64797738
left looks like watercolor

>> No.64799978

>>64799902
So lossless compression isn't a meme since it's being used in industry? What a turnaround. LPCM was a thing back with DVD as well, though it was more common to get lossy AC3, DTS or whatever shit was being used with MPEG-2..

>> No.64799980

>>64799921
WebP's strength is in its lossless encoding, which is much better than PNG. Which is a pity since it's not even based on VP8 like the lossy parts, so it could be it's own separate format and not be dragged down by this silly fight with jpeg.

>> No.64799986

>>64797738
because alts are probably covered by submarine patents out the ass. like JPEG2000

>> No.64800011

>>64799921
That was 4 years ago, a lot has changed since then. Webp is here to stay now that such a significant portion of users use chrome. ~60% aint too bad for supporting webp desu. SJW browser is almost 5% market share now lmao.

>> No.64800019

>>64799978
DVD Audio was mostly 24bit 48/96khz MLP (TrueHD variant) or LPCM, with some cases of DTS 24bit 48khz, so almost always lossless. But it was also pretty rare as it had no chances to replace CDs, which is a pity since it could have freed us from the 16bit 44khz hell.

DVD movies however did not use lossless audio tracks, but 5.1 AC3 and DTS instead. Lossless audio tracks for movies became the norm with Blu Ray.

>> No.64800020
File: 127 KB, 1280x720, StatCounter-browser-ww-monthly-201701-201801.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
64800020

>>64799921
forgot pic related

>> No.64800144

>>64800019
Generally speaking, you're right. LPCM or lossless audio on DVD-Video did exist though, as I have a few DVDs that have LPCM as its only audio track.

>> No.64800271

>>64797738

Personally I'd be happy if browsers started supporting ALL of JPEG, and not just the baseline.

12 bit HDR images, lossless encoding, better compression. All unavailable because they decided to stick with the default set of options in the library.

>> No.64800387

>>64800271
That's because webp does all that + animation/ transparency in lossy/lossless encoding

>> No.64800409

Wavelet based JPEG2000 was not that bad for intra image format. No use with motion compensation, though.

>> No.64800428

>>64800387
WebP doesn't support any bit depths over 8 bits per channel, as far as I can tell. Jpeg supports 12 bits per channel, but all browsers have that feature disabled.

>> No.64800495

>>64797823
That's dumb. When you change the quality of the webp the file size decreases as a result. Then if you try to upscale it from that low quality, it distorts.

Meanwhile FLIF Quality scale is not functioning as the file size remains constant regardless of quality change.

>> No.64800559

Music is in far worse shape. mp3s are still the dominant format despite being replaced by AAC and OGG. Honestly hard drive space is so cheap now there's no real reason to use anything but FLAC unless you're using a phone.

>> No.64800564

>>64799413
The whole reason people still use jpg, jpeg, bitmap is because legacy...
.png used to be the new kid on the block but it's been solidly ingrained on everything for a decade.

SVG is the better option but normies dont even know it exists so I wouldn't hold my breath for webp.

>> No.64800592

>>64799563
It's actually a really cool property of the format. If I understand correctly, the encoder is always lossless, but they have a "pre-processor" that lowers an image's quality such that it becomes more compressible by the lossless encoder.

>> No.64800610

>>64798243
This drives me insane

>> No.64800621

>>64800559
>buying lossy music
wew lad
Also the biggest digital music store in the world sells AAC, dumbass. Also, you better Opus in an OGG container and not Vorbis.

>> No.64800636

>>64797823
resistance to generational loss is something the web specifically sorely needs

>> No.64800638

>>64800559
You can trivially get pretty much any music you want in lossless. It's called "buying a CD". And generally you can get it lossless online too.

After that, you can compress it however you like.

>> No.64800639

>>64798486
LINK ME TO THIS FILE RIGHT THE FUCK NOW

>> No.64800646

>>64800621
>>64800559
It's those fucking stream/phonefags, goddamn it.

>> No.64800652

>>64800621
If you're pirating almost everything is still in 320kbps or v0 mp3, plus Google Play and Amazon which sell mp3s at near the same price as CDs which seems ridiculously unethical. I only buy stuff from HDTracks and Bandcamp.

>> No.64800661

>>64799851
Trolled epic style xDDD DAE le soy? xDDDD

>> No.64800666
File: 9 KB, 272x300, 1518926089420.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
64800666

>>64800564
my dude, ebay literally uses webp rite nao

https://i.ebayimg.com/thumbs/images/g/DXAAAOSwH3hZ8tdr/s-l225.webp

https://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/PfQAAOSwbP1ab6LG/s-l1200.webp

https://i.ebayimg.com/thumbs/images/g/yX4AAOSw7pNZl0sx/s-l225.webp

https://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/oHQAAOSwryBahJQO/s-l1200.webp

webp won whether we like it or not

>> No.64800675

>>64800564
svg isn't even comparable

>> No.64800679
File: 101 KB, 1585x1527, 1426397104814.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
64800679

>>64800652
>SJWCamp
>Placebo tracks

>> No.64800700

>>64798420
nobody knows what WebP is outside of the vocal group of nerds who constantly suck on Google's cock

and no content people actually care about on any of those faceless megacorps are presented in that irrelevant format either

>> No.64800703

>>64800700
tell that to ebay

>> No.64800713

>>64799674
> sjw jpeg encoder
See, that's just baffling.

>> No.64800726

>>64800652
>he fell for the Bandcamp ruse

>> No.64800737

https://www.cnet.com/news/google-mozilla-av1-photo-format-could-outdo-aging-jpeg/

SOON

>> No.64800738

>>64800713
How is he wrong? The mozilla corporation literally threw money at reviving turbo-jpeg libraries to stay relevant. They didn't refuse to adopt webp because it was new, they refused it because adopting it would have meant admitting defeat to google and having lower market share than they already do.

>> No.64800749
File: 107 KB, 699x192, Untitled-1 copy.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
64800749

>>64800666
>https://i.ebayimg.com/thumbs/images/g/DXAAAOSwH3hZ8tdr/s-l225.webp

>> No.64800755

>>64800703
eBay works fine on iShit, Firefox and every other current browser that doesn't support WebP

utterly nobody would care if they dropped it

>> No.64800774

>>64800749
>using the default photo viewer
There's a gimp plug-in as well btw.

>>64800755
lmao see >>64800020

>> No.64800776

>>64800738
>The mozilla corporation literally threw money at
Seriously, just shut the fuck up. The concepts of cause and effect seem to escape you.

>> No.64800780

>>64800749
nvm, it was my fault

>> No.64800785
File: 70 KB, 552x216, mozilla-witch-hunt.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
64800785

>>64800776
whatever you say, FAG

>> No.64800812
File: 311 KB, 1600x1200, origin.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
64800812

>>64800774
>b-but I'm more relevant! those don't count!
nobody cares, not even those chrome users give a shit about a format they've never heard of that the three megacorps that use it have done everything in their power to blend seamlessly in with existing jpeg assets that actually are usable outside of their browser if they wish to do so

here's a pretty sweet origin 3800 I pulled in direct jpeg format right out of the chrome inspector btw

>> No.64800823
File: 117 KB, 1280x720, Screenshot_2018-02-20-01-33-33.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
64800823

>>64800755
Geee would you look at that, every browser that isn't obsolete supports webp. Interesting isn't it? :^)

https://caniuse.com/#feat=webp

>> No.64800828
File: 87 KB, 345x332, 1518742725756.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
64800828

>>64800812
So webp pretty much still won :^)

I wonder what the data saver im chrome costantly used by normies does... :^)

>> No.64800830
File: 1.28 MB, 2109x942, hmm.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
64800830

>>64799395
it's only artifacting because retards don't know how to save it at max quality

>> No.64800831

>>64800823
>>64800828
this is the most boring boot licking shitposting I've seen all week

>> No.64800840

>>64799851
>https://www.google.com/search?as_st=y&hl=en&tbs=ift%3Awebp&tbm=isch&sa=1&ei=3aKLWvKmGo-yggeInKXIBA&q=soylent&oq=soylent
>using jewgle in 2018
just stop trying to bait.

>> No.64800853
File: 498 KB, 2048x1365, 36592341203_46f9db039e_k (1).jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
64800853

>>64800823
>every browser that isn't obsolete supports webp.
>WebP is an image format employing both lossy and lossless compression. It is currently developed by Google, based on technology acquired with the purchase of On2 Technologies.
Uh huh.

Oldfags will remember betamax video cassettes and laserdiscs...

>> No.64800856

>>64800831
So what do they have you doing over at mozilla corporation now xander? Was $15,000 really enough to remove the word "slave" from code? :^)

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.931840-Mozilla-gives-15k-to-remove-Slave-from-build-bot-documentation

>> No.64800864

>>64800840
Yeah boris, some shitty russian search engine is definitely not spying on its users or anything.

>> No.64800884

>>64800271
PNG Supports up to 16 bits per Channel, Lossless Encoding, Transparency , Animation (APNG) and is FREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE.

Fuck JPEG and its patents !!!

>> No.64800886
File: 206 KB, 256x256, 1478388978276.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
64800886

>>64800856
not so fast
you can't appeal to the SJW meme while false flagging for what is effectively the face of silicon valley white guilt with a street shitter at the helm and all kinds of gay art soymale side projects

>> No.64800888

>>64800666
I'm talking on client devices...
Phones, Tablets, TVs, Legacy OS's.
That's why they are still using jpg for images and mp4 for video and mp3 for sound and gifs for slideshows/clips

They dont care about ogg or webm or webp they dont know it exists and their devices probably dont support it.

>> No.64800898

>>64800785
>losing argument, better change the subject
Is everyone from /r/the_donald legally retarded like you? What does that have to do with JPEG?
Go take your ritalin.

>> No.64800899

>>64800828
Source of smug grille?

>> No.64800900

>>64800828
sauce of the image?

>> No.64800902
File: 130 KB, 720x849, 1518054665424.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
64800902

>>64800884
apng isn't supported by anything except the sjw-browser but webp is

>>64800886
ohhhhh, did I strike a nerve?

>>64800888
see >>64800823

android has 90% market share and chrome 60% overall market share

hmmmm

>> No.64800906

>>64800884
It's also lossless and not comparable. Way to flaunt your stupidity and ignorance, idiot.

>> No.64800910

>>64800900
Fuck off I asked first

>> No.64800912

>>64800675
I mean't in comparison to .png

.svg has more prevelence than .webp but less far far less than .png

artists at least use .svg where they don't use .webp

It's not always about the servers using these it's if the consumers are using them.

It doesn't matter that they are better technology if the public doesn't adopt them you understand?

So that's why I suggest we cut out jpg/jpeg and settle for .png since people use it already they just don't know it's superior than .jpg because they are normies.

We would need to have them sharing webps on facebook and IG for it to spread.

>> No.64800916
File: 10 KB, 261x209, 1515523110196.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
64800916

>>64800898
jpeg was "saved©®™" by mozilla corporation©®™

don't want people using that big bad mean webp, now would we XANDER :^)

>> No.64800921

>>64800902
>apng isn't supported by anything except the sjw-browser but webp is

I just checked ant it works in Firefox, Chrome and Opera.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/APNG#/media/File:Animated_PNG_example_bouncing_beach_ball.png

>> No.64800929

>>64800921
got me there, so why use this when the webp file will be 30% smaller?

>> No.64800940

>>64800906
One feature (Lossless) vs Full set of Features PNG has.

Unsupported and proprietary.


Fuck off, kike.

>> No.64800943
File: 7 KB, 231x250, 1519025836475s.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
64800943

>>64800902
you are a fuck of a soy

>> No.64800953

>>64800884
This.
.png is already settled into every platform and normie for a decade.
They have hundreds of these images and they understand to export to them when editing.

It's easier to raise the bar by just removing jpeg/jpg support forcing them to use .png or greater than trying to move the whole internet to .webp

It'll never work because look at all of the other cordecs/containers/standards we have for images/music/video...
Decades ahead yet the public still uses ancient crap.

Sometimes it's more about just keeping the ball rolling than going fast.

>> No.64800954
File: 93 KB, 279x357, Vamp_xander.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
64800954

>>64800943
Calm down XANDER, have you taken your HRT pills today? You're looking a little unwell. :^)

>> No.64800956

>>64798006
>he thinks minified code is for reading
nigga pleez

>> No.64800986

>>64800940
>One feature (Lossless)
It's a feature that defines the format, stop bargaining and trying to save face. You have no idea what you're talking about, you dumb fuck.

>> No.64800989
File: 41 KB, 341x307, 1518037733130.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
64800989

>>64800986
lmao this

>> No.64801028

>>64800621
>DRMed applel garbage
Fuck off

>> No.64801043

>>64800986
Go back to /pol/ , retard.

>> No.64801118

>>64798106
>using photoshop
>for format converstions
>in batch mode
fuck off back to normieland faggot

>> No.64801145

>>64798860
big penis graphic

>> No.64801147
File: 39 KB, 485x544, 1519025888221.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
64801147

>>64801043
>Muh pol boogeyman

spotted the soy-munching libshit leftypol ledditor

>> No.64801167

I know that girl

>> No.64801201

My carefully curated collection of reaction images would become obsolete. All the lossy jpg screenshots I took would become dead weight. I don't like change

>> No.64801249

>>64798860
bee pegg

or buhpuhg

>> No.64801355

>>64799395
asian moot wont do it because
>muh servers
we would have to sacrifice a few pages from the archive or something

>> No.64801985

>>64798420
The maximum pixel dimensions of a WebP image is 16383 x 16383. Slight limitation, but alimitation nonetheless.

>> No.64802003

>>64797738
Because we would have 11 Image standards by now.

>> No.64802013
File: 197 KB, 275x618, 1513501342479.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
64802013

>>64797738
>Javascript

>> No.64802019

>>64797738
Jpg is not the security nightmare flash was.

>> No.64802096
File: 436 KB, 1000x1000, 14596242252795.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
64802096

>>64798420
>508 KB PNG
every fucking time people don't compress their PNG at all
also I'll never fucking use webp until they split the format into lossless-strict and lossy-strict extensions, never stopped being the case and never will

>> No.64802359

>>64797765
>posts 1.13MB picture of doggy

>> No.64802542

>>64800592
Using pngquant is very similar on png images though.

>> No.64802549

>>64797738
jpg fucking works dipshit
t. photograher

>> No.64802713

I just save JPGs at 99-100% quality and they look to be nearly the same quality as the PNGs they were made from (to the naked eye), while being much smaller in filesize

>> No.64803287
File: 351 KB, 720x304, b57fc1eff46129eeed4c9ded231324e8.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
64803287

So. Short ver. - Google buys company with shiny new snakeoil image format and all of a sudden we need to reinvent the wheel because they told us we need to.


jpg's been around for a little while now and a LARGE majority of the industry that produces, manipulates and generally works with images is happy with it.

>tfw I do miss being able to download swf files and play them offline....

>> No.64803651

>>64803287
Nope, it's open source. Google just supports it on their browsers and nobody is forced to use it. The reason why web devs use it at all is because it cuts down on bandwidth and it's all all-in-one format. The SJW lib-turbo jpeg thing offered this but at the cost of huge computational complexity to encode and incompatibility issues. Webp is not only faster to encode but supports animations, transparency, and lossless/lossy encoding.

>> No.64803832
File: 79 KB, 1119x608, webp.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
64803832

>>64803651
>cuts down on bandwidth
>less than 1%
lmao

>> No.64803870

>>64797738
Have fun with the patent trolls.

>> No.64803928

>>64803832
I remember that thread, turns out the guy was using lossy compression in PNG. Impressive desu but takes way too long to be worth the trouble and most of the time you can see the snowflake patterns at 200% zoom.

>> No.64804926

>>64802096
>436 KB
WebP still has you beat. Nice non-point.

>> No.64805034

>>64804926
look closer it's even lossy, he didn't even use dithering to try to hide it.

>> No.64805047

Mozilla made a new format but google refused to support it. Then Google made one that is worse and tries to shove it to Mozilla's throat. Fuck google

>> No.64805049

>>64805034
dithering makes it harder to compress

>> No.64805075
File: 335 KB, 632x484, 1460421808854.webm [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
64805075

>>64805049
Not if you properly pattern it ya 2-bit lowlife.

https://pngmini.com/lossypng.html

>> No.64805148

>>64803832
A percent is a percent, 4chan shortened the cdn urls a while ago which is difference of a few bytes but that's a few bytes every request, on a site with many MANY request a second. As with all data transfer optimizations, it's usually small on its own but adds up when combined with every other technique.

Even if that example wasn't faulty (as someone already mentioned it's lossy vs lossless and webp still won), I see 0 reasons against webp other than platform support.
>faster dec, enc
>smaller size
>not encumbered
What's the actual issue here besides Mozilla's stubbornness? What problems do you have with the standard?

>> No.64805195

>>64798860
Buttplug

>> No.64805599
File: 60 KB, 528x362, 1519091223416.webm [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
64805599

u guys miss me yet? ;^)

>> No.64805606
File: 307 KB, 528x362, 1519091223416.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
64805606

>>64805599

>> No.64805709

LE JAVASCRIPT EVERYTHANG

>> No.64806403

We should just use lossless PNG for everything. Our current connection speeds can easily handle it. JPG is a remnant from an era when 512kb was considered broadband

>> No.64806499

>>64803832
Fake

>> No.64806612

>>64806499
nope see
>>64805075

>> No.64806649

>>64798420
>11KB
Are you on fucking dialup or something?

Who gives a shit if the images are a few MB.

>> No.64806661

>>64797999
Someone who runs a booru?

>> No.64806717

>>64806649
4chins does and so does everybody else because it will load faster. In a perfect world everybody has 1gbps internet and 4chan can serve images to all users at 1gbps. That's not the case irl.

>> No.64806728
File: 70 KB, 354x528, yousuckatcompressing.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
64806728

>>64805599

>> No.64806752
File: 2.33 MB, 4367x7953, 15052202604.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
64806752

Funny how what used to be spicy enough for a men's magazine centerfold now isn't risque enough to warrant a blue board ban.

>> No.64806767
File: 26 KB, 400x400, strawman.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
64806767

>>64806717
>I'll just anthropomorphise this website with a cute nickname and spout bullshit about needing 1gbps to load an image, that'll show em'.

>> No.64806828
File: 422 KB, 1057x640, 1519086366025.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
64806828

>> No.64806889
File: 85 KB, 850x503, libsdl2-dev dependencies.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
64806889

>>64797823
Damn shame it's not supported anywhere, even in flif version upgrades.
And flifview requires libsdl2-dev and all it's dependencies.

>> No.64806890

>>64806767
>anthropomorphise
What does that even mean you nerd?

Anyway you know I'm right, unless 4chan can deliver 4MB images in milliseconds then cutting on bandwidth usage will always be a good idea

>> No.64806954

>>64806890
Furshit pretending to be illiterate, dohoh you sure got me. Here's my response.

I would prove empirically that you are wrong and your ideas are what I am reasonably sure spawned from your self serving narcissistic idiocy but your opinion only matters enough for me to try to be funny and hurtful.

>> No.64807021

>save jpg as PNG
>It's obviously triple the filesize
>Encode jpg binary in a PNG
>It's half the file size of the jpg
We should merge the two!

>> No.64807057
File: 10 KB, 332x336, 1519091422961.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
64807057

>>64806954
>bouw dauwn to meh, i r smert
Holy shit my dude do you ever go outside, at all?

>> No.64807122

>>64806767
i see you post often and i have asked a few times but is the first character in your name i cant read it

>> No.64807169
File: 226 KB, 720x1280, Screenshot_2018-02-20-14-33-44.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
64807169

>>64807122
>愛してる
"I lobe you"
>さわこ
Sawako

c'mon my dude, it's basic moon runes

>> No.64807214

>>64807169
i only started learning japanese in october and only have a lesson once a week we have just started katakana desu

>> No.64807229

>>64807169
"me googling these characters will totally prove them that I speak fluent japanese"
Fuck off weebo

>> No.64807243

jpegoptim
fred's imagemagick scripts downsize
jpegmini.com

advpng [advancecomp package]
optipng
pngcrush

>> No.64807269

>>64807214
jesus christ man, get a fucking book and learn by yourself. At this pace you'll only begin to learn grade school kanji by the time you're 40

>>64807229
Nope, N5 here. Not fluent but more fluent than you, muhhamud ;^).

>> No.64807281

>>64807269
it's alright i dont mind the slow pace is good as it allows me to keep up with my uni work i'm also terrible at self teaching i need a classroom and a teacher or ill just procrastinate

>> No.64807290

>>64807214
>started 5 months ago
>just started katakana
what the fuck
it's the first thing you should learn

>> No.64807316

>>64807290
its more speaking based so weve been learning from romaji and then our teacher introuced a row of hirigana every week know were onto katakana. I think weve covered a fair amount though. Weve done telling the time, ordering food, buying things and asking about items in shops and talking about what you do in a day or your plans so i think weve covered a good amount

>> No.64807319

>>64807281
You got ripped off my dude, you should know all variations of kana かっぴゅんー

>> No.64807344

>>64807316
>learning from romaji
good lord

>> No.64807385

>>64807319
i dont mind my mum got it for my 19th birthday kek what does that mean kapiun?

>>64807344
is that bad? my teacher said its good to stop people getting overwhelmed at the beginning

>> No.64807408

>>64807385
I think spending a short time learning the kana and then using those is preferable (as you will cement your knowledge of them by using them).

>> No.64807455

>>64807408
i think it may be a time thing though since it's only 1 and a half hours a week with the hirigana we went over one row in the last 5 minutes of a lesson and then had to practice at home i just got an app on my phone and used it for 10 minutes before sleeping i can take all my notes in hirigana now though so hopefully i can pick up katakana just as easily.

How much japanese do you know and are you self taught?

>> No.64807502

>>64807455
I've just started learning kanji, started a couple of weeks ago, only doing what you are doing now (app on phone 10 minutes before sleeping).
The app is called Kanji study, I like it because I can do both regular flashcard type study and quizzes.
There's also an app for Tae Kim's grammar guide (which is what /djt/ recommends for learning grammar).

>> No.64807526

>>64806767
>try to make argument in favor of large images
>posts 26KB jpeg
Stupid tripfag is stupid.

>> No.64807528
File: 40 KB, 361x408, unnamed (1).png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
64807528

>>64797823

>Comparison image of lossy formats
>Saves it as JPEG instead of PNG

Save it in 16 color GIF next time cunt.

>> No.64807674

>>64807214
Christ man, I started less than 2 months ago and am reading visual novels.

>> No.64807801

>>64807502
i'll check them out

>>64807674
whoa thats awesome what resources have you been using to learn?

>> No.64807892

>>64807801
I started like that dude with the same app, then visited /djt/ and switched to anki. I'm droning kanji and vocab flashcards, but reading for at least 1 hour everyday is the most important part. Check the guide for more details.

>> No.64808076
File: 32 KB, 1021x180, images.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
64808076

I didn't know I had so many .png on my pc.

>> No.64808767

>>64797823
>17890 bytes
>vs.
>2224, 3048 bytes
Yeah, the Winner!

>> No.64808799

>>64798406
I actually have more faith in .heif because Apple, than .bpg, if we're talking about HEVC encoding.
But .bpg is nice, I would implement it here (thumbs) if I was Nagasaki.

>> No.64808906

I want a more efficient jpg replacement now, I could easily free 500GB of memory if I convert my images to something else but then I wouldn't be able to upload them on 4chan.

>> No.64810436
File: 200 KB, 389x411, i fucking hate lying faggots like you.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
64810436

>>64801167
No you dont you fucking faggot, thats Lena Söderberg a playmate from the November 1972 Playboy centerfold, and the picture is as old as pictures on computers can be.

> Alexander Sawchuk estimates that it was in June or July of 1973 when he, then an assistant professor of electrical engineering at the University of Southern California Signal and Image Processing Institute (SIPI), along with a graduate student and the SIPI lab manager, was hurriedly searching the lab for a good image to scan for a colleague's conference paper. They got tired of their stock of usual test images, dull stuff dating back to television standards work in the early 1960s. They wanted something glossy to ensure good output dynamic range, and they wanted a human face. Just then, somebody happened to walk in with a recent issue of Playboy.
>The engineers tore away the top third of the centerfold so they could wrap it around the drum of their Muirhead wirephoto scanner, which they had outfitted with analog-to-digital converters (one each for the red, green, and blue channels) and a Hewlett Packard 2100 minicomputer. The Muirhead had a fixed resolution of 100 lines per inch and the engineers wanted a 512×512 image, so they limited the scan to the top 5.12 inches of the picture, effectively cropping it at the subject's shoulders.

Go lie somewhere else nigger

>> No.64810506

So why not make a new image format based off AV1 or something and call it MILF
Modern Image Lossless/Lossy Format

>> No.64810530

>>64803651
Most of us just use a module in our load balancers that convert, store, and send webps when the appropriate headers are present. Faggots in design/marketing don't have to worry about it

>> No.64810542

>>64810506
We well probably hear about it soon. Adopting WebP at this point is retarded.

>> No.64810564

>>64810506
I want to reencode all my milf porn into .milf images

>> No.64810610

>>64810542
anyone who goes out of their way to use it is retarded.
but having your load balancer/CDN automatically convert-and-store images to webp to serve to browsers that have the proper header is not retarded, it can save a shitload of bandwidth and decrease rendering time

>> No.64811359

>>64798013
>even more incompatible
>Implying javascript is not one of the most widely used langs in the world, if not one of the MOST "compatible" / portable languages out there.

OP is asking why browser vendors don't add native decoding to the browser, which would most likely be a native, IE C / C++ / rust / whatever version.

Javascript is amazingly portable, it's actually probably the MOST compatible language, seeing as you can run it on literally any computer with a browser. I literally cannot name another language that you can just run out of the box on almost any computer (windows, osx, linux, android, ios, etc are all compatible)

>> No.64811434

>>64797738

BGP was dead on arrival, you'd have to pay royalties to serve images using it, are you so fucking stupid that you think the web is going to start paying to show images ? Fuck even video is becoming royalty free across the entire web with AV1.

WebP has shitty lossy compression but great lossless compression (MUCH better than PNG), but it needed to be fantastic in order to get traction.

FLIF has great compression but is too slow and also difficult to hardware accelerate.

Most likely format to kick JPG off it's throne would be either a new format based upon AV1, or the new-still-in-development PIK format from Google which aims to compress ~65% better at the same quality as JPG:

https://github.com/google/pik

>> No.64811484
File: 388 KB, 1024x904, pepedisgust.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
64811484

>>64797738
>lossy image formats
Ew

>> No.64811494

>>64811484
see
>>64798772

>> No.64811520

>>64811494
That guy is an idiot who has never heard of lossless compression.

>> No.64811599

>>64806752
wypipo are hairy like chimps

>> No.64811838

>>64811434
Seriously AV1 fags are annoying as fuck

>> No.64811880

>>64811838

Did you say something you fucking HEVC whore ?

>> No.64812111

>>64800559
>tfw 160 OPUS is transparent to me on my phone

>> No.64812205

>>64812111
Vorbis and AAC would be too, and they come with hardware acceleration. Opus excels at 128kbps and below.

>> No.64812460
File: 47 KB, 634x650, he_is_a_virgin_what_a_loser.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
64812460

>>64811880
Enjoy your x3000 encoding time.

>> No.64812613

>>64797738
Because all those new image compression formats are filled with patents. Video uses binary blobs with DRM integrated to the browser to play

>> No.64813683

>>64810436
i fail to see how that's proof anon hasn't seen that girl

>> No.64813703
File: 2 KB, 125x72, dunce26.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
64813703

>>64797738
>javascript decoder

>> No.64813996

>>64813683
>seen a playboy centerfold from 40 years ago, and recognizing it as her
>lying on the internet
gee I'm not sure which one is more likely

>> No.64815568

>>64797823
the fuck am I looking at?

>> No.64816089

>>64815568
a 'generation' in lossy compression terms is when you take the output of the compression, and pass it through the compressor again
so that picture shows the result of doing that 275 times, which typically results in 'generational loss', where a little more detail is lost each time it's passed through the compressor

>> No.64816196

>>64816089
thank you

>>
Name (leave empty)
Comment (leave empty)
Name
E-mail
Subject
Comment
Password [?]Password used for file deletion.
Captcha
Action