Post Adf09THn4OP5U8CEJE by sss@pleroma.dark-alexandr.net
(DIR) More posts by sss@pleroma.dark-alexandr.net
(DIR) Post #AddxbmqnjOKTbBiWMy by sss@pleroma.dark-alexandr.net
2024-01-08T17:56:20.495577Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
#photo #catcommon image formats comparison, see for yourself.avif is the best in terms of quality-per-bitwebp is acceptable tooothers looks unusable, here is also jp2, but it seems even less supported than avif, also size for this photo is 12+mb, so it does not worth further analysiscat in avif formatcat in jpeg formatcat in webp formatcat in png format
(DIR) Post #Ade6FqQOf3SRtsyjWi by sss@pleroma.dark-alexandr.net
2024-01-08T19:33:13.881486Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@mgorny source is raw - sony arw 14bit.settings:webp: lossy, 73% qualityjpeg: lossy, 87% qualityavif: lossy, 12bit, 55% qualitypng: 16bit (source is 14bit), maximum compressionalso, here is jpeg xl, it seems uncommon, but take place between webp and jpeg in terms of size.jpeg xl: lossy, 12bit, 80% quality.cat in jpeg xl format
(DIR) Post #Ade9QW7ulk8Rzk79fc by sss@pleroma.dark-alexandr.net
2024-01-08T20:08:46.902970Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@mgorny quality settings decided by reducing it until visible artifacts appears (note what i am not done it for jpeg xl, as i not using it often, so maybe quality for jpeg xl can be dropped to much lover values without visible losses)
(DIR) Post #Ade9idoytoqr4VtuD2 by sss@pleroma.dark-alexandr.net
2024-01-08T20:12:03.577100Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@mgorny unfortunately quality percent setting for various formats does not provide equal quality of result image, so values found by trial and error ....
(DIR) Post #AdeA53VY4tDl6lV0ts by sss@pleroma.dark-alexandr.net
2024-01-08T20:16:07.744368Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@mgorny jxl seems to be more efficient than webp, unfortunately it's nearly nowhere supported outside of specialized software
(DIR) Post #AdeBkWUzILS8qhZe9Q by sss@pleroma.dark-alexandr.net
2024-01-08T20:34:48.445483Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@mgorny it seems c/c++ libs available, so it will spread, but it take time .....anyway, avif is better in terms of quality per bit at least for 12bit images, but jxl looks like good option for 14+bpp which seems unsupported by avif.
(DIR) Post #AdeCKNUUGQv7KtR8V6 by sss@pleroma.dark-alexandr.net
2024-01-08T20:41:18.490327Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@mgorny ok, we can also drop a little bit of quality on jpeg too. so, i have followingcat in avifcat in jxlcat in jpegcat in webp
(DIR) Post #AdeCSkyCqu4cTMKhNY by sss@pleroma.dark-alexandr.net
2024-01-08T20:42:49.314141Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@mgorny .rw-r--r-- 84k sss 8 янв 23:36 FCK01292.avif.rw-r--r-- 612k sss 8 янв 23:35 FCK01292.jpg.rw-r--r-- 180k sss 8 янв 23:36 FCK01292.jxl.rw-r--r-- 364k sss 8 янв 23:39 FCK01292_01.webp
(DIR) Post #Adf09SIoj5dAR1fXGq by radjah@lor.sh
2024-01-08T23:04:37Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@sss хранить фотки в PNG - такое себе.
(DIR) Post #Adf09THn4OP5U8CEJE by sss@pleroma.dark-alexandr.net
2024-01-09T05:59:33.293779Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@radjah да, это пример, во первых чтобы сравнить как выглядит (png без потерь), ну и размер оригинала чтобы понимать.сегодня и в jpeg хранить глупость.вон еще польский товарищь подсказал что есть jpeg xl котоырй оказался лучше чем webp, правда нигде не поддерживается.
(DIR) Post #AdfNhRWQQsK0o1D3AW by sss@pleroma.dark-alexandr.net
2024-01-09T10:23:22.191019Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@mgorny yep, i talked about it from beginning, what relation to quality setting is differ a lot for different formats.anyway, thank you for bringing up jpeg xl, i have not much attention for it earlier