The case for JPEG XL

#1

Post by Kyza » Wed, Nov 02, 2022, 8:11 PM UTC

Re: The case for JPEG XL

#2

Post by zackees » Thu, Nov 03, 2022, 5:39 AM UTC

> A unique feature of JPEG XL is that it is possible to recompress existing JPEG images (of which there are a lot out there!) to a JPEG XL file that is on average about 20% smaller, without introducing any loss. In fact, the bit-exact same JPEG file can be reconstructed from the JPEG XL file.

Thank you.

Re: The case for JPEG XL

#3

Post by sedatk » Thu, Nov 03, 2022, 5:50 AM UTC

Browser support:

- JPEG XL: none

- HEIF: none

- AVIF: all but Edge

- WebP: all

Re: The case for JPEG XL

#4

Post by plantain » Thu, Nov 03, 2022, 5:53 AM UTC

sedatk wrote: post #3

Browser support: - JPEG XL: none - HEIF: none - AVIF: all but Edge - WebP: all

JPEG-XL is already implemented in ~95% of browsers in the wild (Chrome, Edge, Opera and Firefox), just only behind a flag.

Re: The case for JPEG XL

#5

Post by chrisco255 » Thu, Nov 03, 2022, 5:54 AM UTC

sedatk wrote: post #3

Browser support: - JPEG XL: none - HEIF: none - AVIF: all but Edge - WebP: all

Browser support for AVIF and Webp happened when? Browsers evolve over time.

Re: The case for JPEG XL

#6

Post by eslaught » Thu, Nov 03, 2022, 5:55 AM UTC

sedatk wrote: post #3

Browser support: - JPEG XL: none - HEIF: none - AVIF: all but Edge - WebP: all

I was a little surprised about AVIF, so I looked it up and it doesn't seem to be quite there yet (though it's getting there). macOS Safari requires Ventura, and no support yet on Edge.

https://caniuse.com/avif

Re: The case for JPEG XL

#7

Post by Nathanba » Thu, Nov 03, 2022, 5:56 AM UTC

As simplistic as it may sound but Google probably removed it mostly because it's a chunk of c++ that they don't want around. I'm the last person to usually endorse a rewrite but in this case maybe they should consider a Rust port so browsers feel more comfortable including this. The point of an image format is to be adopted by everyone.. it's kind of beneficial if you make that usecase as attractive as possible. Personally I think Rust is actually hard to understand and for that reason dangerous too. But it definitely has some safety over c++.

Re: The case for JPEG XL

#8

Post by sedatk » Thu, Nov 03, 2022, 5:57 AM UTC

eslaught wrote: post #6

sedatk wrote: post #3

Browser support: - JPEG XL: none - HEIF: none - AVIF: all but Edge - WebP: all

I was a little surprised about AVIF, so I looked it up and it doesn't seem to be quite there yet (though it's getting there). macOS Safari requires Ventura, and no support yet on Edge. https://caniuse.com/avif

You're right I missed Edge, but Safari seems to have "partial support" whatever that means.

Re: The case for JPEG XL

#9

Post by anthropodie » Thu, Nov 03, 2022, 5:57 AM UTC

plantain wrote: post #4

sedatk wrote: post #3

Browser support: - JPEG XL: none - HEIF: none - AVIF: all but Edge - WebP: all

JPEG-XL is already implemented in ~95% of browsers in the wild (Chrome, Edge, Opera and Firefox), just only behind a flag.

Chrome Banishes Photo Format That Could Save Space on Your Phone

https://www.cnet.com/tech/computing/chrome-banishes-photo-fo...

Re: The case for JPEG XL

#10

Post by sedatk » Thu, Nov 03, 2022, 5:58 AM UTC

plantain wrote: post #4

sedatk wrote: post #3

Browser support: - JPEG XL: none - HEIF: none - AVIF: all but Edge - WebP: all

JPEG-XL is already implemented in ~95% of browsers in the wild (Chrome, Edge, Opera and Firefox), just only behind a flag.

And it'll stay unsupported until those flags come on by default.