pouring one out for JPEG-XL. who died yet never lived.

and by pouring out i mean drinking it.

@icedquinn
I do wonder what Google were thinking with pulling out support out of Chrome already, when they barely put it in, and it wasn't even a default feature either.

@alyx they gave some dumb cope excuse about "no demand"

i really do not understand why google spent all the effort merging FLIF and JXL and making the whole format to completion and then just going YEET they claim it's been out two years and not successful yet

this is the level of dumb that is CDPR spending all the time fixing up the red engine only to immediately switch to UE5

@icedquinn
Let's be honest, there's wasn't any demand for webp either, and there still isn't that much. It didn't stop Google from pushing it VERY hard.

@alyx i think this came from them having already purchased VP8/9. the tech was lying around all they had to do was just strip it to a single frame of an encoding.

google pushes industrial amounts of images so it really gets the youtube costs down to ship webp thumbnails.

as my test just showed it's really massive savings. multiplied by howeverfuck many thumbnails get downloaded per minute.

@icedquinn
I saw, but the issue I always have with the webp tests, is that they're usually done with something like q75, compared with jpeg at >q90, and then they ignore the significant quality loss.

At the very least you should test both at same q, but even then webp can be so bad, that it needs a bigger q factor than a jpeg to achieve similar final quality.

@alyx i'm not entirely sure what the defaults for {graphics,image}magic are.

i did find changing the error distance in jxl is less of a mess than the quality setting. lowering quality made the image garbage in an instant, but lowering error tolerance just made it progressively blurrier.

webp, video codec as it is, tends to fuck up the chromatics somewhat

@icedquinn
The defaults for webp usually lands around 75-80. Did a quick test for imagemagick, and it seems that with no quality parameter given, it defaults to 99 (tested for jpeg and webp). It's quite ludicrous how big of a file size difference going from q 99 to 100 gives. Definitely NEVER test any image format at q100. It completely skews any result.

>lowering quality made the image garbage in an instant
By how much did you lower. I'm sure going q65 or lower fucks it up a lot, but imo anyone going that low with any image format is just plain ol' stupid to begin with. 80-96 has always felt the sweet spot for me, for any image format I've tested. Anything below 80 has never been worth it.

>tends to fuck up the chromatics somewhat
Yes. Avif does the same.