I can be quite passionate about image codecs. A “codec battle” is brewing, and I’m not the only one to have opinions about that. Obviously, as the chair of the JPEG XL ad hoc group in the JPEG Committee, I’m firmly in the camp of the codec I’ve been working on for years. Here in this post, however, I’ll strive to be fair and neutral.
When the JPEG codec was being developed in the late 1980s, no standardized, lossy image-compression formats existed. JPEG became ready at exactly the right time in 1992, when the World Wide Web and digital cameras were about to become a thing. The introduction of HTML’s
<img> tag in 1995 ensured the recognition of JPEG as the web format—at least for photographs. During the 1990s, digital cameras replaced analog ones and, given the limited memory capacities of that era, JPEG became the standard format for photography, especially for consumer-grade cameras.
In case you wondered if JPEG 2000 is still in use, the answer is a resounding yes. A recent Cloudinary post sheds light on JPEG 2000’s format’s usability and the reasons why it’s not as widely adopted as other formats, such as JPEG, PNG, and GIF. This article elaborates in depth the pros and cons of JPEG 2000 in relation to seven common image formats.
JPEG images are either progressive or nonprogressive, depending on their encoding order, not politics.
Encoding of and decoding of nonprogressive occurs in this simple order: from top to bottom and from left to right. Consequently, when a nonprogressive JPEG is loading on a slow connection, you see the image’s top part first, followed by the other parts as loading progresses.
This talk was given at DevoxxUK by Jon Sneyers
Images are a crucial part of any website or app. In this talk we'll give a brief history of image formats for the web, discussing both the universally supported GIF, JPEG, and PNG formats and some of the newer formats: WebP, JPEG XR, JPEG 2000, BPG and FLIF. We also briefly look at vector formats, in particular SVG and icon fonts. We will cover the strengths and weaknesses of each format and how to use them effectively.
According to a W3Techs survey, the images on 74 percent of websites worldwide are in JPEG or PNG format and for good reason: those images display well on all browsers. However, several newer image formats are well worth consideration, a leading example being WebP. This post describes how to adopt WebP as your image format and, accordingly, lower your image weight by approximately 30 percent and reduce the load time of your websites or native apps.
In part one (One pixel is worth three thousand words) of this turned-to-be-two-part blog post, I discussed one-pixel images and how well different image formats “compress” these images. I was surprised how much there is to be said about the matter. This was supposed to be a short blog post, describing one-pixel images and how they compress, and instead it became a glorious monster (and also a two part blog post…).