You shouldn't compare the same quality setting across encoders as it's not standardized. You have to compare based on file size.
They're far too high quality to tell anything. There's no point comparing visually lossless images (inb4 "I am amazing and can easily tell...").
Right? I had all 3 open and quickly flipped over them saw no difference. Maybe I'm just uncultured.
Re:Jpegli: A New JPEG Coding Library
by tedunangst on Wednesday April 03, 2024 @03:35PM
(#39922008)
What are the file sizes for those two?
The zip file doesn't have the originals, just the PNGs.
Re:Jpegli: A New JPEG Coding Library
by edflsafoiewq on Wednesday April 03, 2024 @03:40PM
(#39922067)
Edit: I'm dumb.
Re:Jpegli: A New JPEG Coding Library
by tedunangst on Wednesday April 03, 2024 @03:48PM
(#39922170)
I would hope the jpegs compress better than png does.
Re:Jpegli: A New JPEG Coding Library
by pseudosavant on Wednesday April 03, 2024 @05:50PM
(#39923678)
Perhaps try quality settings in the 70 range, and comparable output file sizes. 95 will be high-quality by definition.
There are some 70s and 65s in the gist: https://gist.github.com/simonw/5a8054f18f9ea3c560b628b16b00f...
Here's an original: https://gist.githubusercontent.com/simonw/5a8054f18f9ea3c560...
And the jpegli-q95- version: https://gist.githubusercontent.com/simonw/5a8054f18f9ea3c560...
And the same thing with mozjpeg-a95 https://gist.githubusercontent.com/simonw/5a8054f18f9ea3c560...