1 yr. ago • 93%

"Free" as in royalty-free

Reposting this since the original got deleted (except on the instances where it was federated in time) when my beehaw account was erased alongside a week worth of data a few months ago.
Came across the image and thought "why not post again?", I don't know if I still stand by the meme, but frankly I don't care...

I just want to schizopost

⠛⠛⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡷⢶⣦⣶⣶⣤⣤⣤⣀⠀⠀⠀
⠀⠀⠀⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣷⡀⠀
⠀⠀⠀⠉⠉⠉⠙⠻⣿⣿⠿⠿⠛⠛⠛⠻⣿⣿⣇⠀
⠀⠀⢤⣀⣀⣀⠀⠀⢸⣷⡄⠀ ⣀⣤⣴⣿⣿⣿⣆
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠹⠏⠀⠀⠀⣿⣧⠀⠹⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡿⣿
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠛⠿⠇⢀⣼⣿⣿⠛⢯⡿⡟
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠦⠴⢿⢿⣿⡿⠷⠀⣿⠀
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠙⣷⣶⣶⣤⣤⣤⣤⣤⣶⣦⠃⠀
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢐⣿⣾⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠀⠀
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠈⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡇⠀⠀
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠙⠻⢿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠟

43 comments

I have mixed feeling here.

On one hand avif is a libre format.

On the other hand:

Avif has MAJOR limitations for a long term use (i.e. 65.538x 65.538 max resolution among other things)

JpegXL has REVERSIBLE in place conversion to and from jpeg. You can convert jpegs into jpegXLs and gain the size benefits. You can undo the change and convert jpegXLs back into original jpegs all losslessly.

JpegXL has progressive loading which supports people on slower internet speeds. AVIF does not.

Like I want to like avif but it’s hard for it to compete here I think. It’s like cheering for Theora over x265 just because it’s libre. Ideologically yes it makes sense to do so but good god is x265 better than Theora. (Not saying Theora is a representative open video codec though) Just that JpegXL is that much better.
96
- My internet is so bad that on some tests I've gotten ~1mb/s. It averages about 5mb/s, so progressive loading is important for me.
  
  31
  
  Look at this guy flexing his internet speed. I have 4G because despite fiber being less than 300m away they won't bring it. Am near a freaking Olympic stadium so you my think I'd have the best internet but nope, it gets as slow as 32kb/s and even lower. I had times where images gradually load like it's the 90s again and even sites telling me am not connected/going offline mode randomly. I think i need to also mention websites never loading or taking literal minutes to do so.
  
  24
I used to be in camp AVIF, but I've changed my tune to supporting JXL after running some of my own tests. The main things that caused me to change my mind were the better compression ratio, progressive loading, and lossless conversion from JPEG. Those last two in particular are very useful features which AVIF simply doesn't have an answer to.

AVIF is a video format masquerading as an image format, and while that's not a bad thing, it's definitely not as good as a purpose-built image format.

31
- JXL rocks! Its so sad that some browser vendors are seemingly trying to kill it. It has basically all the features you could want for a JPG replacement and also has a reference implementation that implemented all that stuff as free software and with good documentation without any patent bullshit attached.
  
  8
Permanently Deleted

22
I only do SVG 😎

20
- Based, I'm having a lot of fun with Inkscape
  
  8
  
  😃I have coded my SVG using VScode with a plugin which renders it in real time (and stole some paths from other SVG)
  
  4
https://jpegxl.info/why-jxl.html

16
- I'm curious about the "not encumbered by patents", in the last thread someone pointed out that the base JXL implementation has a Google patent too, which I found odd, but it is there, so what about that?
  
  8
Both of them are royalty-free.

15
- Yes, the title refers to AVIF in fact
  
  6
AV1 is at least better than or comparable to H.265

13
- True, great technology, not so great backing corporations.
  I believe that, intuitively, AVIF beats JXL when it's about animated images, so technically they even complete each other in a way
  
  8
I don't understand any of those at all. Anyone got an idiot's guide?

10
- Someone linked this: https://jpegxl.info/why-jxl.html
  I think explains well why it's good, here's a comparison linked from within that website
  
  TL;DR If in the past, to achieve the best file size to image quality efficiency, you had to choose to use PNG for clean graphics (like to export simple vector drawings, text, etc.) where boundaries are clearly defined; and JPEG for photography where the subject is very complex (think trees, rich landscapes, etc.); now you can scrap all that and use JPEG-XL to deliver all kinds of images on the web.
  It's not a new thing, in fact WebP (literally Web Picture) and AVIF want to do the same, but they're simply worse in performance and both are Google's ~~bitch~~ creation, where AVIF (and AV1, which is it's "parent" codec) has some patent shenanigans that could in theory stifle competition, while JPEG-XL supposedly doesn't have that crap
  
  15
  
  WebP is more On2's creation and AVIF created a lot of people ouside of Google. Google's codec is WebP2 and it is crap.
  
  has some patent shenanigans that could in theory stifle competition
  
  No, it's just MPEG-LA being patent trolls.
  
  5
  
  Long life to jpegxl
  
  4
  
  Does Google also have a chokehold on AV1? I thought it was an industry wide project?
  
  2
PNG better.

6
- Not in terms of compression
  
  7
- 2

You've viewed 43 comments.