>>4527602Yeah converting to lossless JXL via GIMP resulted in a 4.6 MB file, so Converseen seems to be lossy-only. More specifically it's using "default" settings which are compression/maxerror=1, effort/speed=7 - the filesize matches exactly. Apparently compression=1 is "visually lossless" which is interesting, but I'm not sure if that has the same data integrity as being actually lossless. I'm on Windows btw not Linux.
>>4527603>RetardDuh.
>You can batch edit with GimpI had no idea. Needs a plugin called Batcher (for modern GIMP, old GIMP used BIMP instead which was what I tried first before realising it wasn't being maintained anymore, whoops), but this seems to work nicely.
>>4527609>Nobody mentioned that it's completely pointless to convert from jpg to jpgxl?No, I was told the opposite, supposedly you can losslessly convert any JPEG to JPEG XL and get a smaller file, however I may have misinterpreted this as making the file itself lossless rather than just not losing anything in the conversion, as I tested converting a JPEG to lossless JXL in GIMP and the resulting file was about twice the size, though still smaller than a PNG so not necessarily a bad outcome if so.
>>4527636I'm a believer, I think Apple supports JXL natively now, and both Firefox and Chrome have "experimental" support, whatever that means. You can turn it on manually pretty easily in Firefox via about:config so of course I did exactly that as soon as I found out. Not sure what Linux's status on JXL support is.
>>4527641>Anon might just be poorThe opposite actually, I've got plenty of space and was prepared to convert everything to PNG since I prefer lossless formats, JXL just has better compression. And I've been wanting to use it ever since I found out about it back in 2023.
>or a protocol autistGuilty as charged.