JPEG XL

>JPEG XL
>VP9
>AV1
>Opus

These are all standards that could help an image board like this immensely.
Better compression is good for everyone. Any Forums needs less traffic for the same content, users can enjoy watching WebM's without being bothered by artifacts, and archivists can take a breather on upgrading their capacity.

Is there a reason why we don't have any of these technologies? VP9 is already outdated at this point, but it would still be a significant boost from current WebM's.

Attached: JPEG_XL_logo.svg.png (1200x1514, 31.97K)

Other urls found in this thread:

z5lcip4dafatwwa6hvyibizpzwycvwp67cjga3hzjhxhwvuyaqavxnid.onion/All/
z5lcip4dafatwwa6hvyibizpzwycvwp67cjga3hzjhxhwvuyaqavxnid.onion/tech/1147
l7jqnz3yfe2wtwietafoieadmgqbu7dcmzmey63ktbjtxal3he4a.b32.i2p/All/
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

idk. maybe the jannies are just retarded?

I support them on my little board:
z5lcip4dafatwwa6hvyibizpzwycvwp67cjga3hzjhxhwvuyaqavxnid.onion/All/

JPEG XL isn't yet supported in any browsers without flipping a flag, but it's cool that you can do stuff like this:
z5lcip4dafatwwa6hvyibizpzwycvwp67cjga3hzjhxhwvuyaqavxnid.onion/tech/1147

Attached: 2022-05-28-092028_960x681_scrot.png (960x681, 220.54K)

Why is it an onion site only.

>jpeg > jxl
meh
>png > jxl
whoa

I2P also
l7jqnz3yfe2wtwietafoieadmgqbu7dcmzmey63ktbjtxal3he4a.b32.i2p/All/

1.75MB lossless in JPEG XL

I dare you to get it lower than this.

Attached: marble.png (1920x1080, 3.01M)

I mean, why not a normal site.

Does it contain cheese pizza or something?

I'm hosting it from home behind NAT.

ISP NAT that you can't forward ports through? What times we live in.

While I understand not wanting extra costs, there's still the option of using a VPN (either self-hosted on a VPS or using a VPN provider) to expose your home server to WAN.

90% high-quality JPEG. Still has some visible artifacts.

Attached: marble.jpg (1920x1080, 1.33M)

JXL with the same quality setting. Virtually no artifacts at half the size.

Attached: 634.png (1920x1080, 3.67M)

Attached: file.png (600x315, 226.11K)

>634 Kb JXL can encode the same picture as a 3.01 Mb PNG

Impressed yet?
Heck, I could take it lower to match the JPEG, and you would still think it's the same picture.

>I dare you to get it lower than this.
might be able to do it in a few KiBs with the code to render it

GPU precision differences would technically make it lossy.
Of course, you could also use a predefied Mesa OpenGL renderer.

Admin is a jap and staff is nothing but illiterates. You know they are going to break shit.

1.50 MiB lossless JXL with cjxl -e 9 -I 1 -E 3 -g 3; -E3 is the most important of the options here.

this site pioneered webm, why not jxl?

gookmoot is a tard