xpostml10 to memes@lemmy.world · 1 day agoGoogle's WebPlemmy.mlimagemessage-square168linkfedilinkarrow-up11.24Karrow-down125cross-posted to: memes@lemmy.ml
arrow-up11.22Karrow-down1imageGoogle's WebPlemmy.mlxpostml10 to memes@lemmy.world · 1 day agomessage-square168linkfedilinkcross-posted to: memes@lemmy.ml
minus-squareILikeBoobies@lemmy.calinkfedilinkarrow-up6arrow-down1·edit-21 day agoTldr: as we deal with a problem long enough we find more effective ways of dealing with it https://jpegxl.info/ Has some info on what it does https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/JPEG_XL Technically details might be more what you are looking for https://jpegxl.info/resources/jpeg-xl-test-page And a test page, if you don’t see jxl images then you should look at updating your browser
minus-squareAux@feddit.uklinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up2·3 hours agoThere are no browsers with jxl support and won’t be for many years to come.
minus-squareILikeBoobies@lemmy.calinkfedilinkarrow-up1arrow-down1·3 hours agohttps://lemmy.ca/post/44481761/16672821
minus-squareAux@feddit.uklinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1·58 minutes agoAgain - no browsers support jxl. Firefox “support” is only basic rendering of a few basic features. It’s not just browsers, there is literally no software which fully supports jxl. And won’t be for a long time.
minus-squareValmond@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkarrow-up1·16 hours agoSo you have no hard proof (no critic here, I’m just curious)? Not that it’s better but that your test images has the same quality. For the rest, thank you for the links and the time but that only explains how the compression works. If you want to know you could do fourier transform and see which kind of signals are cut out in one for example.
minus-squareILikeBoobies@lemmy.calinkfedilinkarrow-up1·edit-27 hours agoQuality improvements are that you can upload/download it without getting artifacts/pixel bleeding. JXL’s algorithm ensures that it’s a 1 to 1 transfer But if I draw a stick person 512x512, there isn’t an image format that will make it anymore than it is. That’s why we look at compression
Tldr: as we deal with a problem long enough we find more effective ways of dealing with it
https://jpegxl.info/
Has some info on what it does
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/JPEG_XL
Technically details might be more what you are looking for
https://jpegxl.info/resources/jpeg-xl-test-page
And a test page, if you don’t see jxl images then you should look at updating your browser
There are no browsers with jxl support and won’t be for many years to come.
https://lemmy.ca/post/44481761/16672821
Again - no browsers support jxl. Firefox “support” is only basic rendering of a few basic features. It’s not just browsers, there is literally no software which fully supports jxl. And won’t be for a long time.
So you have no hard proof (no critic here, I’m just curious)? Not that it’s better but that your test images has the same quality.
For the rest, thank you for the links and the time but that only explains how the compression works.
If you want to know you could do fourier transform and see which kind of signals are cut out in one for example.
Quality improvements are that you can upload/download it without getting artifacts/pixel bleeding. JXL’s algorithm ensures that it’s a 1 to 1 transfer
But if I draw a stick person 512x512, there isn’t an image format that will make it anymore than it is. That’s why we look at compression