Well memed

Just stop

"Embrace the new standard" - I would, gladly, if it was actually "a standard", something implemented in most common use cases - image software, comic book readers, browsers, etc. Right now it isn't. Right now it's just compression with extra steps. Because right now for the reader I use on Android, I have to convert the files back to something that can be understood by that reader. For my reader on PC, I have to convert back to something useful. To view it in my favorite image viewer - you guessed it, I have to convert to something that is actually a common standard. Nonetheless, thanks for the upload, I don't really mind you making me work for my porn and I don't mind wasting twice the disk space (for storing "original" JPEG XL archive - for when that actually becomes a standard AND storing "converted" archive for use right now - when JPEG XL is not yet a well-known standard) - as someone said in comments for one of the previous uploads, storage is cheap. So yeah, once again - thanks, and I hope you can buy and upload more to try to make me accept the new standard, because as you can see - I'm not entirely convinced yet.

OP, if you're not a troll, you would upload original files too... As much as you care for HD space, me and 99% of people don't. I personally have 5Tb HD space, and new HD's are dirt cheap, even with my third world salary...

This prompted me to read about JPEG XL: https://cloudinary.com/blog/how_jpeg_xl_compares_to_other_image_codecs If it saves a but of storage without the loss of quality, then I'm all for it. I have 14TB archive, but that doesn't mean I can't be frugal with space.

you mean Embrace the new standard of **CRINGE**

I convert all my doujins to ASCII art in .txt files for the ultimate in storage savings. They can even be opened by more readers than JPEG XL.

@whnc8sk6r8mq except right now it doesn't "save you a bit of storage", because right now if you download that 45.5MB then you cannot use it as-is because it isn't supported by... well, by almost anything. So you store that 45.5MB archive and then you convert it to 75MB. So now you have 120MB wasted by two archives out of which one you use for storing (because "it saves you space by storing in JPEG XL") and the other you need for reading (because most software does not support JPEG XL just yet, so you can't use that smaller archive). All while original PNG archive would probably be below that 75MB you get from decompressing JPEG XL. Now don't get me wrong - I'm all in for smaller, smarter, better way of storing images, but not until it is "consumer ready". If I open the file in a widely used image viewer and it tells me that it does not know what that format is - that's not "consumer ready". If I have to convert the image to something different before my manga reader is able to recognize and display it correctly - that's not "consumer ready". Right now, for most people, JPEG XL is basically compression with extra steps (and that is even assuming people can work with console/cmd and use commandline tools to convert back to png - most people can't and will be lost, unable to view this or any of the two other JPEG XL releases), nothing else and certainly not "better way of storing images". Not until it is widely adopted and working "out of the box" for most readers, viewers, browsers, etc.

Nicely glued to the floor. Thumb up!

We Forced To Used JPEG XL

For anyone that actually wants to use the files. Download the windows binaries from the other post and copy djxl.exe to the extracted folder. Then open the command prompt. If your folder is not on the C drive enter cd /d D: (D is the letter of the drive where the folder is). When your in the correct drive type "cd " and drag the folder into the command prompt and hit enter. The folder path should now be on the left side. Then type for /r %F in (*.jxl) do djxl.exe "%~nF.jxl" "%~nF" to convert to png. Embrace the old standard.

@x3e8_2 Well, that makes sense. Kind of reminds me of the situation with Vista release, and the lack of driver support for it, now that I think about it. So, taking all of that in mind, wouldn't converting all of those JPEG XL galleries back to PNG and seeding new torrents be the best option? You could then nuke (or whatever's the equivalent of it for open trackers) JPEG XL torrents.

>shared a porn for free and got called a troll :')

>So, taking all of that in mind, wouldn’t converting all of those JPEG XL galleries back to PNG and seeding new torrents be the best option? You could then nuke (or whatever’s the equivalent of it for open trackers) JPEG XL torrents. @whnc8sk6r8mq well, I don't really care, I can convert them myself from JPEG XL to PNG so for me it doesn't matter what format they are shared in (although smaller download/upload size is welcome tbqh). But as far as I know, no, converting it back to PNG and then sharing the result wouldn't be the best option. The best option would be to share the original PNGs that were used to create JXL - in the discussion in one of the other two JXL shares, someone pointed out that the PNGs resulting from JXL "decompression" are larger than the original ones. So let's assume, So for example, original PNG archive could have been 70MB (assuming the file that was just edited in the description is original one, and not result of another set of conversions), which after conversion to JXL was reduced to 45 which then after another conversion, back to PNG now sits at 75 (which is more than original PNG archive)... But for the non-technical people out there that can't really convert the JXL back to PNG themselves (and I assure you, if the conversion tool is commandline - and in this case it is, then majority won't be able to use it. even as simple tool as this one) I guess the "inflated" 75MB is still better than nothing... @wolfdale123 and I said thank you, and once again - thanks. I don't really care about the format as long as it is lossless and there is relatively easy way to convert back to something sane.

the file on the description is the original one extracted from the pdf (surprise surprise, irodori released their shit on pdf).

@x3e8_2 the difference between original PNG and [PNG->JXL->PNG] is really zero. Content wise. As long as JXL encoder is used in lossless mode. Files get different size because there is no standard way of saving PNG, and JXL decoder uses some predefined settings which are not equal to how the original files were created. If you optimize both cases with pingo or PNGGauntlet you'll get 2 identical files. I've tried it myself, this confirms that JXL is capable of lossless compression. Problem is, the uploader was not going to provide original files from the start, which makes it impossible to verify that he was indeed using lossless mode. And further discussion decreased my trust into his actions, so I can't trust him even if he uploads the original files. He could upload PNG files decoded from lossy JXL instead. Other problems are already outlined here. No support from general viewing software. Also both encoder and decoder are really slow compared to trivial formats. It really is a sophisticated codec, and convincing everyone to use it will take SOME time. If we talk about saving as much space as possible, I really think at this point its only chance for fast adoption lies in integration with common archiving formats like ZIP/RAR5. Its encoding/decoding speed could only be improved by adding GPU processing support. Such codecs need to process dozens of gigabytes of data to compress a single high resolution image. Also, lol, the images are not x3200. Could it be that uploader was unable to properly extract data from PDF?