Comments by "Winnetou17" (@Winnetou17) on "My hot take on image formats" video.

  1. On the Google doesn't support JPEG-XL because CPU costs... that's a cop-out. They've been asked multiple times, including by companies like Adobe, to implement it and they just straight up refused also acting like nobody cares about JPEG-XL. You can say whatever you want, but if you read the chromium thread about it, it's clear as day that Google DECIDED against both JPEG-XL and the community with no technical reasoning. Of course, they didn't say out loud why. Also, the CPU costs of JPEG-XL cannot be the only reason of rejecting it. There's loads of other use cases. Not to mention the forward looking of, JPEG XL is alone in the amount of features it provides/support that is outside of just some 300x300 images on a random website. You can have wide color gamut and HDR in it. People taking high-detail high resolution photos, can put the original images directly as jpegxl. But Google directly jumped in to say "nope, cannot see that directly in the browser. Think of the children in Africa!". I'll stop, my blood is starting to boil. I see that close to the end of the video these extra features were mentioned, so at least I'm at peace that Theo saw that. - I'm totally on the webp that it is good and it should still be supported as the bridge to JPEG XL. - AVIF has nice features, but it's a dead-end technology, we shouldn't bother putting more effort into it. - JPEG XL is truly the next generation of image formats and what we will use for decades. Hence why it's so infuriating of Google actively being against it and slowing massively its adoption. No, I'm not buying out the CPU cost argument. That's not the browser support problem. In a world where a website has a 6.6 MB JPEG with .png extension image, there's PLENTY of room for JPEG XL. Lastly, I really want to see benchmarks of just how slow JPEG XL supposedly is. I found out a benchmark, apparently from 2020 which unfortunately doesn't have a comparison to webp. And just citing X or Y MB/s is meaningless when you don't webp on the same exact hardware, as the numbers can differ massively from one CPU to another. Not to mention that 4 years have passed, things might've changed. EDIT: Initially mentioned about JPEGXL being lossless, but Theo corrected that very quickly. Also mentioned about PNG: PNG not being compressed ? Duuuude .... It's not a good compression for photographs (hence why people still use JPEG for that, it looks basically the same to a human, if you don't need to zoom in, and it is a smaller size as a JPEG). But PNG itself totally has compression. And multiple ways in which you can reduce the file size. There's a reason TinyPNG exists (or existed, didn't check recently)
    208
  2.  @harrytsang1501  The hardware acceleration is a very good point, if it can be used it will be indeed be both very fast and energy efficient. Regarding the dead-end part, I might've jumped to conclusions too soon. Unfortunately I don't remember anymore the bigger list of limitations or downsides it has. From what I remember it was the max resolution and the lack of progressive decoding that were major hurdles. As in, it's almost as new as JPEG XL and it already has known downsides, why get used to them instead of jumping directly to the overall better format ? Now if these can be added in then... I'm not against having more formats. As long as we don't get to 14 of them :D
    11
  3. Yup! Very well said. Sad to see all of that being kept "outside" because "CPU costs for old smartphones!"
    6
  4. JPG is lossy even at 100 quality.
    3
  5. Yup! Well summarized!
    2
  6. gif is really niche nowadays, only usable for small simple images or small simple animations. And the animations part wasn't the topic of this video.
    2
  7. Well, at least it's in the name :))
    2
  8. Yeah, but nowadays gif is useful only in pretty niche cases, for small, simple images. Or animations, but the animation part wasn't the topic of this video clip.
    1
  9.  @sgtyota  And progressive loading. And wide gamut + HDR support.
    1
  10.  @olavrb  What latency ?
    1
  11. Edit: bad take, kinda off-topic, see next replies. That's the thing, SVG only makes sense in certain contexts. If you have any photo or complex drawing in your website you either can't use SVG or it will be a massive downside using it. Overall, it doesn't make sense to have a website just with SVG, as a general statement, so that's why it's a cross.
    1
  12.  @hopperelec  Hmm, actually, you're right, sorry about that, got things mixed up in my head. If that were the case I don't think we'd have fonts as vectors for decades now. Though fonts are probably a niche case where more optimisations can be had.
    1
  13. Eh, if you read the comments, you realize he messed up a lot of details. And I'd say that even the broader picture (pun not intended) is a bit off.
    1