Do you have a general stance about it?
Once every couple of months I look into the state of both projects and it’s slow but steadily progressing.
I am mainly looking into it because of the file compression. My tests showed that I can save up to 70% in disk space for a jpg image without losing too much information for both formats, avif and jxl. It depends on the images but in general it’s astonishing and I wonder why I still save jpgs in 100% quality.
But, I could also just save or convert my whole library to 70% jpg compression. Any advice?
You must log in or register to comment.
JXL is the best image codec we have so far and it’s not even close. I did a breakdown on some of its benefits here. JXL can losslessly convert PNG, JPG, and GIF into itself, and can losslessly send them back the other way too. The main downside is that Google has been blocking its adoption by keeping support out of Chromium in favor of pushing AVIF, which started a chicken and egg problem of no one wanting to use it until everyone else started using it too. If you want to be an early adopter you can feel free to use JXL, but just know that 3rd party software support is still maturing.
Something you might find interesting is that the original JPEG is such a badass format that they’ve taken a lot of their findings from JXL and made a badass JPEG encoder with it named jpegli. Oddly, jpegli-based JPEGs are not yet able to be losslessly-compressed into JXL files, per this issue - hopefully that will be fixed at some point.
jxl is love. jxl is life (also afaik re-encoding jpeg to jxl is lossless)
Yes it’s lossless. JPG->JXL lossless compression is generally 20% savings for free.
Don’t compress your images to 70% jpg!!!
HDD space is essentially free, just get more. With a 70% quality jpg, you lose the ability to crop, edit or blow up your images. It basically limits you to looking at them on a screen. And even there, you’ll get jarring artifacts in dark areas.I think they were saying that they could save space by converting their existing jpg files to avif or jpgXL,
not converting to a 70% quality jpg. JpgXL can do this losslessly so there’s no drawback there, but converting to avif would be a lossy to lossy transcode.EDIT: I completely missed OP’s last paragraph, which does say they are considering converting their existing jpg files into 70% jpgs.
Hdd space is free?? Where do you live?
“essentially free” not technically free.
A typical picture as an uncompressed BMP would cost $0.00001725
Thats 57,980 pictures for a dollar.
Sources:
https://toolstud.io/photo/filesize.php?imagewidth=1920&imageheight=1080
Price per MB = Price per TB / 1,000,000
Ohhh, got it. The whole file size thing went through my head.
Take 50 photos per day that you actually keep, save them in RAW format, and a $30 2TB HDD will last you for 4 years.
With a 70% quality jpg, you lose the ability to crop, edit or blow up your images. It basically limits you to looking at them on a screen.
I don’t understand what you mean! 🧐
If I have a 70% quality jpeg, I can open it in Gimp and crop, edit or blow up (a bit) the image.
You can, but 70% quality has visible jpeg artifacts and any editing makes them worse.
Oh. I see!
Thank you 😊
I would really like an android gallery allowing for “full size” favourites with one click. All others get compressed.
I some time had 10GB images in total. Jpeg is already awesome.
No idea why the browsers just dont support it
Jpg at 70% will lose a significant amount of detail. It is a “lossy” format, you cant judt compress data for nothing.
AVIF is significantly more efficient than jpeg, so it loses less image data for higher compression (smaller file sizes).
JXL supports both lossy and lossless compression, and is supposed to be more efficient yet over AVIF. However it’s got proprietary all over it because Google et al. For thst alone I would shy away from JXL and go AVIF.
JXL is not proprietary. It’s an open, royalty-free format whose reference implementation is BSD-licensed.
I always shoot in raw+jpeg with the jpeg quality set to 100%. The raw files have a higher dynamic range and there is little or no processing done to them. The files are large, but storage space is cheap these days. The jpeg files are for convenience and if I don’t like the way they come out, I can process the raw file however I want and export it to whatever format is most suitable for what I’m using it for.
