Shit cost money for any platform.
Even Lemmy convert images to .webp?
I'd love being able to just upload my 4.6MB image and getting it reduced down to sub 2MB, but I have to do that manually because Jerboa & co doesn't do it nor accept bigger images than 2MB.
Am I missing something?
It's still compressesed on mastodon , I tried to post a 3072 x 4080 2mb jpeg and when downloaded from the post it's now a 2499x3319 500k jpeg
Depends on the server, and I pretty much understand service providers why they're doing it, although it would be nice to buy some high-quality slots from them, as a way to support them.
It honestly probably isn't worth it for them. They don't want the hassle of having to deal with two different tiers of image hosting, especially when they're not primarily trying to be an image host
If someone really wants a RAW image of my crusty ass dog, for some reason, you can ask me to send it over something else. It's a waste of bandwidth for the majority of photos, which are view once per person, and never again. Nobody can host that much data for free without some big catch.
Dog.
Lossy compression is antiquated. Jpg should no longer be used as it's not 1999. I will die on this mole hill.
JPEG XL (JXL) seems promising, being able to do a fair amount of compression while keeping images still high quality.
Lossless compression doesn't really do well for pictures of real life. For screenshots it's ideal, but for complex images PNGs are just wayyyy to big for the virtually non noticeable difference.
A high quality JPG is going to look good. What doesn't look good is when it gets resized, recompressed, screenshotted, recompressed again 50 times.
PNG is the wrong approach for lossless web images. The correct answer is WebP: https://siipo.la/blog/whats-the-best-lossless-image-format-comparing-png-webp-avif-and-jpeg-xl
A high quality jpg looks good. The 100th compression into a jpg looks bad.
I know compression has a lot of upsides, but I've genuinely hated it ever since broadband was a thing. Quality over quantity all the way. My websites have always used dynamic resizing, providing the resolution in a parameter, resulting in lightning fast load times, and quality when you need it.
The way things are shared on the internet is with screenshots and social media, been like that for at least 15 years. JPG is just slowly deep frying the internet.
I disagree, but I do agree that there are better options available than JPEG. Lossy compression is actually what allows much of the modern internet to function. 4K HDR content on Netflix wouldn’t be a thing without it. And lossy compression can be perceptually lossless for a broader range of use cases. Many film productions use high quality lossy formats in their production pipelines in order to be able to handle the vast amounts of data.
Of course it all depends on the use case. If someone shares some photos or videos with me to keep, I’d like them to send the originals, whatever format they might be in.
Yeah, let's all post RAW 40MB photos right from the phone on ... The Internet!
What a good idea.
Is there a specific reason? And subsidiary do you only listen to 96-bits FLAC too? Should video not be compressed either?
I mean, I'm all in with you when it comes to storing my holiday photos, but sharing them? Not so much.
That said, I grew up with 35kb jpgs so I'm kind of used to it, maybe I'm skewed.
it's not 1999
Don't tell the kids over on Dormi.zone that.
What is blue sky all about any fucking way, "no we need a corpo daddy and we want the same corpo daddy that ruined the world with Twitter.
Hopefully he just keeps making them and selling them off. Dilute it down to nothing.
The whole goal of bluesky is to not need a corp, what are you talking about
What the hell are you talking about?
