this post was submitted on 06 Aug 2024
340 points (92.3% liked)

Technology

59219 readers
4404 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
L3s@lemmy.world
L3s@fry.gs
L4s@fry.gs
L4s@lemmy.world
enu@lemmy.world
340
JPEG is Dying - And that's a bad thing | 2kliksphilip (www.youtube.com)
submitted 3 months ago by ProdigalFrog@slrpnk.net to c/technology@lemmy.world
156 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] TheRealKuni@lemmy.world 4 points 3 months ago (2 children)

Compared to something like JPEG XL? It is hands down worse in virtually all metrics.

Only thing I can think of is that PNG is inherently lossless. Whereas JPEG XL can be lossless or lossy.

[–] hedgehog@ttrpg.network 4 points 3 months ago

I haven’t dug into the test data or methodology myself but I read a discussion thread recently (on Reddit - /r/jpegxl/comments/l9ta2u/how_does_lossless_jpegxl_compared_to_png) - across a 200+ image test suite, the lossless compression of PNG generates files that are 162% the size of those losslessly compressed with JPEG XL.

However I also know that some tools have bad performance compressing PNG, and no certainty that those weren’t used

[–] KairuByte@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 3 months ago

It has a higher bit depth at orders of magnitude less file size. Admittedly it has a smaller max dimension, though the max for PNG is (I believe) purely theoretical.