Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

>Look at the original JPEG at quality 85 :

<img class="lazyload" decoding="async" src="" data-orig-src="https://photo.aurelienpierre.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/..." alt="" />

Sorry, I can't. That doesn't actually display any image at all in my browser because you're relying on javascript execution to switch the img src to it's actual source. You don't need to do this for lazyload to work anymore. There's browser native lazyload. Just put the actual image in the src.




I came here to say the same thing.

It's bizarre how the author's attitude is that the webp authors should know better. Yet his blog cannot link to images properly without JavaScript. My browser supports lazy loading images and srcset; all the things he would want. It does that without JavaScript. Yet he tries to implement that in JavaScript and does not have a fallback to use the browser's native implementation. It's difficult to take him seriously in criticizing others' competencies when he, in a blog post about image quality, cannot include images with over-complicating things to the point of breakage.

His point on color banding is clear and others have pointed out that the luma in 4:2:0 subsampling is terrible. But Google is not in the photography business. (Overlooking his attempt to convert from lossy compression to another lossy compression.) It is in the content business but only in so far as it furthers its advertising business. It is not in content for the same reason as the author so they don't share the same interests.

Compare https://jpeg.org/jpegxl/ to https://developers.google.com/speed/webp/

> JPEG XL is designed to meet the needs of image delivery on the web and professional photography.

If you search google's documentation on webp they mention photography like four times and never as "professional photography".

It's honestly funny that he is surprised that Google is advocating for a file format that does not suit his needs as a professional photographer. Google is an advertising business; everybody knows this.

Finally, I never see critics of (or anyone commenting on) webp mention that it supports transparency. What other format is someone to use if they want lossy transparency? It's great for small low quality thumbnails of images (like jpg or png) or animation (like gif) or video. You can throw just any input at ffmpeg and ask for a webp and it will give you something useful that represents one frame of the input. It fills that niche very well.

Once JPEG XL because well supported, I'd like to use it; I hear good things. But it isn't well supported yet so webp is the only option for images with lossy transparency.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: