this post was submitted on 09 Aug 2024
34 points (100.0% liked)
technology
23308 readers
199 users here now
On the road to fully automated luxury gay space communism.
Spreading Linux propaganda since 2020
Rules:
- 1. Obviously abide by the sitewide code of conduct.
Bigotry will be met with an immediate ban
- 2. This community is about technology. Offtopic is permitted as long as it is kept in the comment sections
- 3. Although this is not /c/libre, FOSS related posting is tolerated, and even welcome in the case of effort posts
- 4. We believe technology should be liberating. As such, avoid promoting proprietary and/or bourgeois technology
- 5. Explanatory posts to correct the potential mistakes a comrade made in a post of their own are allowed, as long as they remain respectful
- 6. No crypto (Bitcoin, NFT, etc.) speculation, unless it is purely informative and not too cringe
- 7. Absolutely no tech bro shit. If you have a good opinion of Silicon Valley billionaires please manifest yourself so we can ban you.
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
image compression standards are my jam so i watched the video.
jpeg is a decades-old lossy image compression format that's historically been pretty good for its purpose of storing adequate quality images while conserving space and especially bandwidth. but there are modern alternatives that are better, including jpeg xl that the author highlights as especially useful because it's backwards compatible with old jpeg files. and one of the video author's main arguments is that jpeg xl is robust and future-proof, it will continue to be a file format that's shareable and readable for many years or even decades to come.
but the modern internet ecosystem (meaning google chromium browser which dropped support for jpeg xl last year) seems to be gravitating towards avif, the av1 image format. it's a file format for still images based on the av1 video compression algorithm that's focused more towards maximizing compression, and isn't backwards compatible with jpeg. another big issue with avif is that it caps out at 12 bits of color resolution compared to 32 bits of color resolution in jpeg xl, which can lead to some unsightly compression artifacts.
jpeg xl is also a much simpler format to encode and decode so it uses less hardware capacity and therefore energy use when creating and displaying many images. and jpeg xl supports progressive decoding, loading up and displaying an initial low quality version of the image and filling it in with finer details, rather than having to load and decode the entire image at once. he also complains about avif headers causing problems, things that will make it more difficult to even read the files in the future, potentially.
that's about what i got out of the video. personally i agree, i wouldn't go storing my old photos as avif anytime soon.
Damn I love a good Hexbear infodump.
Can I ask for your thoughts on .webp vs .avif for static web development? I'm working on moving towards .webp just because AstroJS has a Image library that converts images to .webp at build time and sort of figured, sure why not? But I only recently really learned about .avif.
sure, i don't do web development so
Fair enough.
The justification for webp for Android development is that it reduced apk size