Do you have a general stance about it?

Once every couple of months I look into the state of both projects and it’s slow but steadily progressing.

I am mainly looking into it because of the file compression. My tests showed that I can save up to 70% in disk space for a jpg image without losing too much information for both formats, avif and jxl. It depends on the images but in general it’s astonishing and I wonder why I still save jpgs in 100% quality.

But, I could also just save or convert my whole library to 70% jpg compression. Any advice?

  • @KISSmyOS@lemmy.world
    15•1 year ago

    Don’t compress your images to 70% jpg!!!
    HDD space is essentially free, just get more. With a 70% quality jpg, you lose the ability to crop, edit or blow up your images. It basically limits you to looking at them on a screen. And even there, you’ll get jarring artifacts in dark areas.

    • Confetti CamouflageEnglish
      8•1 year ago

      I think they were saying that they could save space by converting their existing jpg files to avif or jpgXL, not converting to a 70% quality jpg. JpgXL can do this losslessly so there’s no drawback there, but converting to avif would be a lossy to lossy transcode.

      EDIT: I completely missed OP’s last paragraph, which does say they are considering converting their existing jpg files into 70% jpgs.

    • @lascapi@jlai.luEnglish
      2•1 year ago

      With a 70% quality jpg, you lose the ability to crop, edit or blow up your images. It basically limits you to looking at them on a screen.

      I don’t understand what you mean! 🧐

      If I have a 70% quality jpeg, I can open it in Gimp and crop, edit or blow up (a bit) the image.