|
Top-level
 @nafnlaus Thanks, I think the quality is OK even if I can sympathize with the example on the bug report. Anyway, I post all the source, layered and hi-resolution of my art on my blog under a creative commons license ( for reusage , eg. wallpapers, and full resolution ). I consider here only "previews. That's why I'm OK. (and because, ecology 🌱) 4 comments
 @davidrevoy What it's doing today is basically cutting the resolution way down, but then saving with a high JPEG quality factor. Except lowering the JPEG quality factor saves a lot more space (for a given quality level) than shrinking images. And it doesn't even force conversion of PNGs, so you can post monstrously large PNG files - but it still ruins their quality. For starters. It's honestly a mess. (BTW, your work is lovely :) ) @nafnlaus Ha, that's good to see other format and the ratio quality/storage/bandwith being studied. If there is a waste in quality that could be solved without putting weight (or even better, with lighter footprint), I'm all OK!  @nafnlaus I've been thinking about the issue. Hot take: sacrifice availability and hotlink big images by default. Keep LQ side by side and federate *it*. |
Gregory's Server
@davidrevoy It's actually throwing away quality for no good reason, unfortunately. With proper handling we can compress JPEGs to half the size for a given amount of quality (or double the quality for a given size). And WebP improves that ratio by ~25-30%, and AVIF by ~50%. And then better dedup'ing (image fingerprintting) could cut server resources dramatically further. There's also proposals for a HQ (but less convenient) image option, with lower default size.