this post was submitted on 23 Dec 2024
529 points (94.9% liked)

Microblog Memes

6037 readers
2545 users here now

A place to share screenshots of Microblog posts, whether from Mastodon, tumblr, ~~Twitter~~ X, KBin, Threads or elsewhere.

Created as an evolution of White People Twitter and other tweet-capture subreddits.

Rules:

  1. Please put at least one word relevant to the post in the post title.
  2. Be nice.
  3. No advertising, brand promotion or guerilla marketing.
  4. Posters are encouraged to link to the toot or tweet etc in the description of posts.

Related communities:

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
all 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 49 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

Shit cost money for any platform.

Even Lemmy convert images to .webp?

[–] Valmond 10 points 1 day ago (1 children)

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?

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Naah, Upload limit is instance wise like lemm.ee have 500kb. So, no it will not take 1mb file and reduce it to 500kb or less. That's why I don't even rely on default lemm.ee image upload. I just use my paid private image hoster.

[–] Valmond 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I have my own lemmy instance with pictrs, still can't use bigger images. Maybe it's a hard limit or else every other instance will deny the "too big image"?

I'm okay with that limit, it's just a hassle you can't share a bigger image and have it reduced in size automatically.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

How large?

Lemy.lol have 10mb.

[–] Valmond 1 points 1 day ago
[–] [email protected] 31 points 1 day ago (1 children)

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

[–] ZILtoid1991 5 points 1 day ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 19 hours ago

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

[–] [email protected] 114 points 2 days ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 33 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Can you send it over? I want to count your dog's hairs.

[–] [email protected] 44 points 2 days ago (1 children)

I'll send the whole dog if you want to do that

[–] [email protected] 26 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Yeah actually, it looks super cute and cuddly.

[–] [email protected] 35 points 2 days ago (1 children)

He's probably too friendly for his own good, but yes, he's the world's chillest dog.

His breath is worse than a malboro's.

[–] Shardikprime 9 points 1 day ago

Omg is the let me do it for you dog

[–] [email protected] 28 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (5 children)

Lossy compression is antiquated. Jpg should no longer be used as it's not 1999. I will die on this mole hill.

[–] JayDee 14 points 1 day ago

JPEG XL (JXL) seems promising, being able to do a fair amount of compression while keeping images still high quality.

The showcase webpage for JXL.

[–] [email protected] 49 points 2 days ago (4 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 16 points 2 days ago (2 children)
[–] [email protected] 11 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

I found quite a lot of AVIF encoders lied about their lossless encoding modes, and instead used the normal lossy mode at a very high quality setting. I eventually found one that did true lossless and I don't think it ever managed to produce a file smaller than the input.

Turns out, that's a well known issue with the format. It's just another case where Google's marketing makes AVIF out to be fantastic, but in reality it's actually quite mediocre.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

They lied about the lossiness?! I can’t begin to exclaim loudly enough about how anxious this makes me.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

The funny thing is, I knew something was off because Windows was generating correct thumbnails for the output files, and at that time the OS provided thumbnailer was incapable of generating correct thumbnails for anything but the simplest baseline files.

(Might be better now, idk, not running Windows now)

That's how I knew the last encoder was producing something different, even before checking the output file size, the thumbnail was bogus.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 day ago

This story is a nightmare and I’m not sure if it’s better or worse now knowing that it was ancient ICO files that tipped you off.

Open question to you or the world: for every lossless compression I ever perform, is the only way to verify lossless compression to generate before and after bitmaps or XCFs and that unless the before-bitmap and after-bitmap are identical files, then lossy compression has occurred?

[–] [email protected] 7 points 2 days ago (1 children)

jxl is a much better format, for a multitude of reasons beyond the article, but it doesn't have much adoption yet. On the chromium team (the most important platform, unfortunately), someone seems to be actively power tripping and blocking it

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 day ago

Yeah Google is trying to keep control of their image format and they are abusing their monopoly to do so

[–] Anticorp 7 points 2 days ago (1 children)
[–] RizzRustbolt 1 points 1 day ago

.tif or nothing, yo.

[–] Donkter 6 points 2 days ago

A high quality jpg looks good. The 100th compression into a jpg looks bad.

[–] kernelle -3 points 2 days ago

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.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 day ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I understand the need for compression and re-encoding but I stand by the claim we should not use a container that will eat itself alive a little bit every time it's edited.

[–] naught101 1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

How often does a jpeg get edited in practice though? maybe a 2-3 times at most?

[–] Valmond 4 points 1 day ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Files should be at reasonable resolutions and sizes for their purpose but not in file formats that slowly deteriate in an internet of remixing ideas.

[–] Valmond 0 points 1 day ago (1 children)

So not analog?

Who taught you jpgs deteriorate over time lol

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

https://uploadcare.com/blog/jpeg-quality-loss/

It happens when the image is edited and re-encoded on save. Who taught you they didn't?

[–] Valmond 2 points 1 day ago

Oh, so it happens ... Shuffles papers ... When someone degrades the quality intentionally.

That happens if you reduce the dpi of your raw image too btw.

Not "over time" !

[–] RizzRustbolt 2 points 1 day ago

it's not 1999

Don't tell the kids over on Dormi.zone that.