News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Don’t use JPEG-XR on the Web by masklinn on Monday December 31, 2018 @03:58PM (#18796972)
Meanwhile using ffmpeg's default settings it's 63k as h.264 and 45k as h.265.
Re:Don’t use JPEG-XR on the Web by londons_explore on Tuesday January 01, 2019 @03:36AM (#18799460)
Starting a video in most browsers is pretty expensive (it usually loads up various GPU features for hardware video decoding).

On some old and buggy machines, that might cause the browser to crash too.

Not something Google wants to risk for a doodle - that's why all non-trivial doodles require a click to load.

Re:Don’t use JPEG-XR on the Web by masklinn on Tuesday January 01, 2019 @08:10AM (#18800042)
> Starting a video in most browsers is pretty expensive (it usually loads up various GPU features for hardware video decoding).

OTOH it might be cheaper (relatively) on phones as they can offload the work to hardware components and ramp CPU down (or avoid ramping it up).

Re:Don’t use JPEG-XR on the Web by BurningCycles on Monday December 31, 2018 @06:39PM (#18797823)
But that is lossy compression.
Re:Don’t use JPEG-XR on the Web by Solar19 on Monday December 31, 2018 @07:37PM (#18798127)
It doesn't matter. It will look the same.
Re:Don’t use JPEG-XR on the Web by the8472 on Monday December 31, 2018 @08:31PM (#18798329)
chroma subsampling, shallow gradients, ringing, the lack of transparency are all quite visible issues when trying to encode cartoons, pixel graphics or screen captures with the standard profiles of lossy video codecs.