Hacker News Reader

>You'll never see JPEG-XS images stored on disk or sent over the web.

I don't see why not. The image quality is near perfect, according to the article, for not even double the average file size, and it uses much less energy to encode and decode, so it's better for your battery life on mobile devices.

View on HN

Because this would be at least 5 times slower to transfer compared to regular image formats, and on mobile a lot of energy goes to power the screen (while user is staring at a blank one, waiting for data) and radios (which now have 5x more work to do).

JPEG XS has severe restrictions of realtime encoding and a 30-line buffer, which are necessary for its goals, but make it a bad choice for anything that doesn't have such limitations.

Is it a bad choice, or an impossible choice?

Because if it’s possible to send one over the web, I would like to see it rendered with my own eyes. Speed be damned.

I think the whole appeal is faster encoding/decoding, but compared to a normal jpeg, it's the same image quality with a larger file size. I could be mistaken, the article is kinda light on actual technical details.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com