look at this browser compatibility chart. crazy.
anyway, i found out that i have a 43 MP image saved (thanks, Rzar), and decided to losslessly compress it with "maximum effort".1 my laptop has been going away at it for the last 40 minutes, 100% cpu power on all cores, 75 degrees maxing out.
there is too much sunk cost to stop, but i'm honestly gonna be surprised if it's under a megabyte. because oh god there is a chance that it might just do that. gonna leave the laptop on the table to churn away for now.
i have posted an update to this
-
the JPEGXL algorithm has 10 "effort levels" for compression power. usually the devs recommend going with 4 at most, and only using more power where compression is actually needed. i am going to ignore the warnings and compress a 43MP image with max power. losslessly.
it crashed :(
i’ll check what happened in about an hour, since i’m not home currently, but it looks like it just crashed, because there is no output and cjxl is no longer running.
ran a quick imagemagick compression on the same image though, 9.0MB -> 2.2MB. good enough, but i’ll try to do better with E8 or E9 later.
weather update 2
yeah i have no idea what happened but it just crashed trying to output the image. it took 2.5h to render, and i don't get to see it. sad!
weather update 3
did lossy compression with E9 and got it down to 1.4MB with distance of 2!!!! with no quality loss!!!!! crazy fucking algorithms!!!
and now with the distance of 5 it's... taking a while to encode... 687KB! zooming in you don't really see compression artifacts, because they're really smoothed out. good lord, this format needs to be supported everywhere, that's massive!
to note, the image size is 5584x7830 pixels. 43 megapixels. 687KB without major quality loss. amazing.