News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:The case against JPEG XL by nananana9 on Monday September 14, 2026 @03:14AM (#49693054)
PNGs will persist because I know that they're lossless by looking at the filename. When I hit File > Save as .png, I don't have to inspect output metadata (that image viewers don't expose) or play around with exporter settings.

It's unfortunate that we didn't give lossless webps a separate extension. Frankly I think even saving them as .png would've better than what we have now - people roughly understand that a .png is an image without artifacts, and any self-respecting image viewer will inspect magic bytes before opening a file anyways.

Re:The case against JPEG XL by _flux on Monday September 14, 2026 @03:21AM (#49693109)
Well, you should enable Adam7 interlacing for nicer progressive decoding!

I suppose it's not very useful nowadays as most any image will load fast, though.

Re:The case against JPEG XL by edflsafoiewq on Monday September 14, 2026 @03:27AM (#49693155)
Being lossless is a function of the whole pipeline from an input image to an output image. The last step being encode to PNG doesn't guarantee anything about losslessness.
Re:The case against JPEG XL by xigoi on Monday September 14, 2026 @03:50AM (#49693349)
Lossless means that the file encodes the exact same information that was given to the encoder. This is a property of the format.
Re:The case against JPEG XL by ZeroGravitas on Monday September 14, 2026 @04:19AM (#49693574)
Yes but people add pre-preprocessor steps to image formats, like blurring jpegs or lowering bit depth in PNGs to make them more compressible.