Don’t use JPEG-XR on the Web

Re:Don’t use JPEG-XR on the Web by lucb1e on Monday December 31, 2018 @03:56PM (#18796958)

> No image compression format is going to save us from websites that use 2000x2000 sized photos for 200x200 author thumbnails.

This sounded like an obvious truth but I think you're wrong!

JPEG has progressive rendering, so a browser could easily decide to stop once it has rendered enough for the image size. Once you zoom or if it's used elsewhere, it can render a little more.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Don’t use JPEG-XR on the Web by dempseye on Monday December 31, 2018 @06:27PM (#18797772)

You still have to download it all, though. Right?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Don’t use JPEG-XR on the Web by ben_w on Monday December 31, 2018 @06:56PM (#18797942)

Technically no, but JPEG divides the image into 8x8 segments (does that vary by channel? Can’t remember) so using full resolution images as thumbnails will still suck everyone’s bandwidth like correctly resized .bmp files

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Don’t use JPEG-XR on the Web by lucb1e on Tuesday January 01, 2019 @07:38AM (#18799956)

That's the point of progressive rendering, it renders less and less blurry the more the image loads. On slow connections with big images, I've seen the effect in the wild.

[ Parent | on HN ]