this post was submitted on 21 May 2025
999 points (97.9% liked)

memes

14864 readers
6206 users here now

Community rules

1. Be civilNo trolling, bigotry or other insulting / annoying behaviour

2. No politicsThis is non-politics community. For political memes please go to !politicalmemes@lemmy.world

3. No recent repostsCheck for reposts when posting a meme, you can only repost after 1 month

4. No botsNo bots without the express approval of the mods or the admins

5. No Spam/AdsNo advertisements or spam. This is an instance rule and the only way to live.

A collection of some classic Lemmy memes for your enjoyment

Sister communities

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Valmond@lemmy.world 2 points 17 hours ago (2 children)

Is the quality the same? If so how do you know? I mean it's better, I'm just curious.

[–] ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca 5 points 16 hours ago* (last edited 16 hours ago) (1 children)

Tldr: as we deal with a problem long enough we find more effective ways of dealing with it

https://jpegxl.info/

Has some info on what it does

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/JPEG_XL

Technically details might be more what you are looking for

https://jpegxl.info/resources/jpeg-xl-test-page

And a test page, if you don’t see jxl images then you should look at updating your browser

[–] Valmond@lemmy.world 1 points 4 hours ago

So you have no hard proof (no critic here, I'm just curious)? Not that it's better but that your test images has the same quality.

For the rest, thank you for the links and the time but that only explains how the compression works.

If you want to know you could do fourier transform and see which kind of signals are cut out in one for example.

[–] Olissipo@programming.dev 2 points 14 hours ago

For most of the images that I tried you can only see differences with the images side by side. It's really subtle.

I do have one example for which my config must be bad, compresses a lot but introduces a lot of noise