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

Other urls found in this thread:

javascript is intrusive


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


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.


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

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?

I'll pass.

everyone knows FLIF is the best successor to JPG


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





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.

That should have been a 7 color PNG.

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

watch the beginning of the video

who /.png/ here?

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

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

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…

lacks some sort of SNR metric


that's just zack being a piece of shit tho desu senpai
original is around 743KB, it can be shrunk lossless to almost half of that, pic related

>js decoder
top kek

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

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.

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.

>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

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

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.

are you fuckin dumb mate

>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

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?

yes I would like

You people are retarded. The example uses javascript because the browser doesnt support BPG. Once it's supported it wont need javascript.

>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

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.

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

>lossy anything


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

Learn English.

But how am I supposed to pronounce bpg?

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

bee pee jee