WHY IS JPEG SUCH FUCKING SHIT!
Because you're a fucking retard.
>>54534115
Awesome. Great fucking post you neet.
That exclamation looks like it was made by a retard, did you mean to use a question mark?
Because normies don't care. We could be using webp by now
>>54534242
Yea just noticed, my bad.
>>54534269
Fuck them.
Fun fact: digital cinemas are literally displaying a stream of individual jpeg pictures.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_cinema
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Material_Exchange_Format
>>54535708
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Cinema_Package
>>54534072
Lossy compression. It's like listening to mp3s with your eyes.
>>54534125
Stay butthurt, you mouth breathing shit stain.
>>54535708
>>54535750
Fuck lmao
>>54535760
It is but JPG is much more shit.
>>54535766
I am not, you fucking autistic man child.
because it's intended for photographs and you set the quality too low
>>54535879
But it happens when you repost, and download.
>>54534072
Because it doesn't use middle out compression algorithims
>load .PNG into graphicsgale
>62 unique colours!
>load .JPG into graphicsgale
>9000 unique colours!
Fuck me out /g/.
>>54536096
.JPG comparison
>>54536139
50% quality, 44000 colours
>>54536175
>>54536139
>>54536096
Jpeg is NOT intended for things with few colors and sharp lines that you want to preserve. Lossy compression in general is unsuitable for those things.
>>54536096
>>54536139
>>54536175
jpg is ass
>>54536216
What is it intended for?
>>54536281
Photographs.
>>54536305
But won't it go to shit? Like when you send it to someone, and that person posts it, and somebody else downloads, and etc.
>>54536281
It works REALLY well for photographs.
It absolutely sucks for anything not photographs (or photograph like, such as a screenshot from a modern videogame).
>>54536281
Use .PNG for pixel art and non-photographic data that you want to rescale and alter.
Use .JPG for photographic data you want to upload to the web, but it's better to use .PNG unless you're on super slow internet.
Long story short, .PNG is lossless and is used when quality is important. .JPG is lossy and is used when you don't want to run up >data caps.
Gotta post those reaction images on 4chan under 4MB senpai
>>54536338
If you make a change to the image then it introduces artifacts, if you just save the image and repost it then it doesn't do anything.
FLIF
L
I
F
>>54534072
>2016
>complaining that a standard made in 1990 is shit
>>54535708
JPEG and JPEG2000 are not the same
>>54536369
>If you make a change to the image then it introduces artifacts, if you just save the image and repost it then it doesn't do anything.
posting it on Facebook reduces the size and quality
>>54536365
>.JPG is lossy and is used when you don't want to run up >data caps.
web dev 2016: save 300kb on images by serving .jpg instead of .png, add 2.5Mb of .js libs
>>54538437
This. Considering when it was made, JPEG is fucking alien technology. It really is remarkably good for how simple it is.
>>54538021
Is extremely good and, after further development, may be the first post-JPEG format to actually get serious traction - JPEG2000 (totally different wavelet-based) has existed for over a decade and basically nobody uses it.
>WHY IS A TWENTY YEAR OLD FORMAT NOT AS GOOD AS A TWO YEAR OLD FORMAT REEEEEEE
JPEGs encoded properly look fine. If you have a -qscale 10 JPEG file, obviously it's going to look like dog shit.
It's like complaining that MP3 sounds like shit, when you're listening to a 48kbps file.
>>54535994
I heard JPEG's Weissman score is like 0.1
>itt retards who don't get that you can have uncompressed jpgs
>>54535994
http://www.piedpiper.com/
JPEG does photographs well but can't do lossless (also nonstandard vector alpha is possible)
PNG can do lossless and alpha but can't so CMYK or 32bit color
TIFF can do everything above but is nonstandard and can't do animation (neither can the other two though)
TIFF-A, BPG and FLIF seem promising though. They're the future. Webp is a meme
>>54534072
>1 KB
computerphile has a nice video series of jpeg
>>54541561
>itt: a retard who thinks that you can have uncompressed jpgs
What's wrong with BMP HTTP already supports gzip compression, so it makes no difference whether you use PNG or BMP in the web.
>>54542257
>compressing a file every time you send it instead of once
>>54542257
1. gzip != gzip. HTTP compression has to be fast and efficient, so it uses weaker settings, and it usually doesn't even apply to binary files.
2. Not all PNGs are compressed with gzip. Specialized libraries like zopfli can achieve better compression ratios.
3. There are more differences between PNG and BMP than just the compression level. (e.g. colorimetry metadata, high depth support)
>>54542333
Also,-rw-r-----. 1 nand nand staff_u:object_r:user_tmpfs_t 15Mb May 14 14:16 clownSuperXBRnoAR.bmp.gz
-rw-r-----. 1 nand nand staff_u:object_r:user_tmpfs_t 8.0Mb May 14 14:16 clownSuperXBRnoAR.png
>>54539988
>JPEG2000 (totally different wavelet-based) has existed for over a decade and basically nobody uses it.
Because it's worse than JPEG. Doesn't stop the JPEG2000 lobby from pushing it in digital cinema
>>54539785
Facebook probably reencodes images that are uploaded
>>54539785
Facebook is just trying to match the quality of the images to the quality of the text
