• fuckwit_mcbumcrumble@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    43
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 month ago

    Lossless compression doesn’t really do well for pictures of real life. For screenshots it’s ideal, but for complex images PNGs are just wayyyy to big for the virtually non noticeable difference.

    A high quality JPG is going to look good. What doesn’t look good is when it gets resized, recompressed, screenshotted, recompressed again 50 times.

      • morrowind@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 month ago

        jxl is a much better format, for a multitude of reasons beyond the article, but it doesn’t have much adoption yet. On the chromium team (the most important platform, unfortunately), someone seems to be actively power tripping and blocking it

    • Donkter@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 month ago

      A high quality jpg looks good. The 100th compression into a jpg looks bad.

    • kernelle@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      1 month ago

      I know compression has a lot of upsides, but I’ve genuinely hated it ever since broadband was a thing. Quality over quantity all the way. My websites have always used dynamic resizing, providing the resolution in a parameter, resulting in lightning fast load times, and quality when you need it.

      The way things are shared on the internet is with screenshots and social media, been like that for at least 15 years. JPG is just slowly deep frying the internet.