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.
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.
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.