no thanks

>>7288
Nope. This is the future. You're just emotionally invested in bloated, primitive file types. Smaller file sizes and lossless compression = better.

Post edited on 7th May 2022, 10:45am

I don't see the point when TC doesn't even support thumbnails for such a meme format. This comes with a problem; For example (and this is quite radical example), if someone posts CP on JXL format, someone else could accidentally download the image to view it, because it wasn't supported by their browser. Thus, they have violated the law.

And as you said, browsers don't support it out of the box. It's especially true for older browsers (than 2021!) and alternatives like NetSurf. This sounds like someone parroting the latest fad on HN.

>>7290
I just said it's smaller. So upload speeds are faster and the 7mb limit isn't as limiting. And you could make the same argument for any "innocuous" file type like pdfs. Somebody could just rename cp to "something.pdf" and post it here too.

Netsurf is not worth thinking about in any capacity. It's a buggy mess nobody in their right mind uses. If it were up to people like you, nothing would ever change or improve.

Post edited on 6th May 2022, 10:53pm

>>7291
>like pdfs
The thing is that PDFs can be viewed by older browsers and thus don't necessary break the law.

>7mb
What the fuck are you talking about? /pic/ has 16 mb limit.

Post edited on 6th May 2022, 10:55pm

>>7292
>PDFs can be viewed by older browsers
If you viewed it, you downloaded it. It's in your browser cache.

>What the fuck are you talking about?
/ot/ has a 7mb limit.

>>7293
>If you viewed it, you downloaded it. It's in your browser cache.
Browser cache is legal grey area in this case.

>>7294
How convenient. "legal grey area" is code for "I interpret the law in a way that supports my shaky arguments".

Post edited on 6th May 2022, 11:19pm

>>7295
I'm glad that we agree at least on one thing.

>>7296
Legality is irrelevant. You brought it up because you dislike anything new that doesn't work on meme browsers, so you want to kill it.

>>7287
Nobody gives a shit about your meme format that nobody uses

>>7289
You're making me want to use BMP out of spite.

>>7298
>>7299
People like you have to be forced to adopt anything new because you're old and tired and hate change. 5 years from now, you'll have no problem with them, but now you're getting all pissy about it. It's no different from webm.

Post edited on 7th May 2022, 9:32am

Never heard of it. Waiting for when most image software become compatible with it.

>>7300
I don't remember anyone fighting webm, and that's probably because webm wasn't exactly meant to replace .gif, but work in places where .gif makes no sense, like with longer videos.

>>7301
qt support is simple to add if you're on linux. Windows thumbnail support is also fairly simple. Waiting makes sense though.
https://github.com/novomesk/qt-jpegxl-image-plugin#Installation
https://github.com/saschanaz/jxl-winthumb

Post edited on 7th May 2022, 12:44pm

Interesting discusison, although perhaps /navi/ would be a better place since there's a distinct lack of image dumping going on here.

That aside,
>>7302
Yeah if you look at webp, that never really took off because png/jpeg are just fine so there isn't a compelling use-case for the non-standard format. Although I'm actually surprised webm took off like it did as a gif replacement as opposed to people just falling back to mp4. I doubt people actually cared baout the vp4/h264 difference, h264 is usually has hardware decode support, and is more widely supported, so I'm honestly not sure what convinced people to start using webm over mp4.

As for jpeg xl, I don't really see the point since it's not really a substantial benefit over what we have now, and especially not worth sacrificing browser compatibility for. I also don't think it's fair to call JPEG as bloated or primitive considering it's probably the most elegant and simple to understand lossy-compression scheme you can think of for images (fourier transform + quantize + statistical compression).

>>7304
webm as a gif replacement doesn't make sense to me. The experience is very different from a gif's because it's a video format.

https://cloudinary.com/blog/how_jpeg_xl_compares_to_other_image_codecs#advantages_of_jpeg_xl
>You can transcode existing JPEG files effectively and reversibly to JPEG XL without any additional loss. Not so for previous attempts at creating “next-generation” image formats, such as JPEG 2000, JPEG XR, WebP, and now HEIC and AVIF
>In terms of functionality and compression, JPEG XL fully supersedes JPEG, PNG, GIF, WebP, and TIFF.
>You can encode or decode modern video codecs like AV1 and HEVC in software, but the computational cost is high... In contrast, you can easily encode or decode JPEG XL in software on current hardware
>JPEG XL compresses better than GIF, APNG, and animated WebP

Jpeg-xl? Sorry, never heard of it:
https://www.phoronix.com/news/Chrome-Dropping-JPEG-XL-Reasons

>>7350
I don't know why you're celebrating. This is purely due to Google wanting push their own formats. Imagine celebrating any better technology being killed off because you hate change that much. Decrepit, old man mentality.

Post edited on 30th Oct 2022, 9:50pm

>>7351
I doubt the poster to whom you're replying is jubilant, but rather merely making a joke.