bummer the adaptive jpeg compressor uses an old imagemagic and its quite a pain to finagle.
jpeg-archive did get close to the size of a default webp though which was impressive. 146kb above the webp.
from what i can tell they're doing some tricks with visual perception scores and then crunching numbers over a huge hoard of photographs and using that to train heuristics. seems to work quite well https://github.com/danielgtaylor/jpeg-archive
there is another one called adept that is based on some analysis stuff that i couldn't build https://github.com/technopagan/adept-jpg-compressor it does some kind of edge analysis and then quantizes that to make a bitmap of where to use high and low quality encoding.
i don't know if the webp encoders are this advanced and i'm fairly sure the jxl ones are not. when i tested jxl it actually gets pretty competitive size performance to webp despite ... being seemingly massively less complicated
shame we'll never get to use it.
from what i can tell they're doing some tricks with visual perception scores and then crunching numbers over a huge hoard of photographs and using that to train heuristics. seems to work quite well https://github.com/danielgtaylor/jpeg-archive
there is another one called adept that is based on some analysis stuff that i couldn't build https://github.com/technopagan/adept-jpg-compressor it does some kind of edge analysis and then quantizes that to make a bitmap of where to use high and low quality encoding.
i don't know if the webp encoders are this advanced and i'm fairly sure the jxl ones are not. when i tested jxl it actually gets pretty competitive size performance to webp despite ... being seemingly massively less complicated
shame we'll never get to use it.
Follow
💀
@icedquinn
I'm curious what webp encoder you found that is competitive with jxl. I mean sure, you can get any lossy compressor to get incredibly small file sizes if you sacrifice quality, but when having decent quality is your first metric, I'd still rather use jpeg over webp.
@icedquinn
>jxl gets blurrier
This is why I'm curious how much you're compressing in the first place, cause I find webp blurry even at >90.
Jxl is quicker to get to a blurry mess than Avif, but I had to go way down to achieve it.
jxl gets blurrier (depends on which knobs you twist and how hard) and webp sometimes does fucky chromatic shit even at 99% quality.
i still use webp for things but i appreciated that JXL was a straight forward decoder and not a nearly turing complete monstrocity like AV1/AVIF