Originally posted by andyprough
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Mozilla Comes Out Neutral On JPEG-XL Image Format Support
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by Quackdoc View Post
what do you consider high fidelity? lossless? I would consider high fidelity anything accurate enough that a human wouldn't be able to tell without looking at it explicitly looking for differences when the two images are side by side. stepping up from there you have visually lossless, in which case its not expected unless by pixel peeping to be able to realistically tell a difference, and then real lossless.
optimized jpegs are suitable enough for high fidelity. however JXL is better, and is still better then avif. also when I mean high fidelity, I mean when comparing from the source, not necessarily exported from lightroom
Comment
-
Not exactly an indicator of a trustworthy account. That combination would also be true for an old account that simply got hacked.
Comment
-
Also, the mentioned account is a bot. No one uses it. You need to mention account N1, the first Michael.
You could just report your own posts and they will be restored.
- Likes 2
Comment
-
Originally posted by Artim View PostReality is, the majority of users doesn't care at all about those things, they most likely wouldn't even notice them.
*Even if users don't notice the bandwidth or speed differences on the majority of the networks that they use, the size difference will add up over time to noticeably less bandwidth used on metered connections.
- Likes 5
Comment
-
Originally posted by schmidtbag View PostThe only thing that matters is what features the least capable browser (of browsers that a notable percentage of the population uses) can offer. If Chrome, Edge, or Safari lacks support for something, web developers effectively cannot use that feature. That's why IE was such a nightmare for so long - it was so popular yet so limited that the entire internet was held back by more than decade.
- Likes 3
Comment
-
Originally posted by ATLief View Post
I often see variations of this argument regarding many different topics, and I think you're missing the point: users want compatibility with all of their devices, faster loading times, lower bandwidth usage*, and cheaper services. They don't need to know or care about the underlying technologies to appreciate those benefits, and it's stilly to ignore the preferences of literally millions or billions of people just because they can't articulate it in a way that you would prefer.
*Even if users don't notice the bandwidth or speed differences on the majority of the networks that they use, the size difference will add up over time to noticeably less bandwidth used on metered connections.
- Likes 1
Comment
-
Originally posted by ATLief View Post
I think backwards-compatibility is actually one of the major benefits of JpegXL. It's computationally cheap and lossless to convert between the two formats, so websites can store their images as JpegXL's and convert them back to Jpeg's for clients that don't support the newer format.
Comment
Comment