• cyd@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    5 months ago

    People are quick to blame Google for the slow uptake of Jpeg XL, but I don’t think that can be the whole story. Lots of other vendors, including non-commercial free software projects, have also been slow to support it. Gimp for example still only supports it via a plugin.

    But if it’s not just a matter of Google being assholes, what’s the actual issue with Jpeg XL uptake? No clue, does anyone know?

    • redisdead@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      5 months ago

      The issue with jpegxl is that in reality jpeg is fine for 99% of images on the internet.

      If you need lossless, you can have PNG.

      “But JPEGXL can save 0,18mb in compression!” Shut up nerd everyone has broadband it doesn’t matter

      • AdrianTheFrog@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        5 months ago

        Check how large your photos library is on your computer. Now wouldn’t it be nice if it was 40% smaller?

        • redisdead@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          5 months ago

          I have several TBs of storage. I don’t remember the last time I paid attention to it.

          I don’t even use jpeg for it. I have all the raw pics from my DSLR and lossless PNGs for stuff I edited.

          It’s quite literally a non issue. Storage is cheap af.