if you do not want to delete the original jpeg, there is no point in converting them to jpeg xl I would say.
Unless serving jxl and saving bandwidth, while increasing your total storage, is worth it to you.
Yes the whole point of lossless re-compression is that you do not need to keep the original JPEGs. Of course you don't need to "purge" backups, just let them rotate out normally.
Also backup storage is usually cheaper than something that needs to have fast access speeds.
For people that shoot digital cameras saving as JPEG, it will a very cocky suggestion to tell them to toss out their camera original files!
You'll know JPEG-XL if real when camera manufactures allow for XL acquisition instead of legacy JPEG only.
Re:PNG Is Back
by spider-mario on Tuesday July 01, 2025 @10:20AM
(#44434164)
> For people that shoot digital cameras saving as JPEG, it will a very cocky suggestion to tell them to toss out their camera original files!
But they can recover them from the JXL files, so are they really “tossed out”? It’s not really different than any other form of lossless compression.
Is that gained space enough to account for the fact you now have 2 files? Sure, you can delete the original jpg on the local system, but are you going to purge your entire set of backups?