Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Firefox 157 will include JPEG XL by default on all platforms

groups.google.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 137 posts

Re: Firefox 157 will include JPEG XL by default on all platforms

#71

Post by SR2Z »

dlahoda wrote: post #59
cute_boi wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

My wife, son and me not using Safari. Do not see how Safari relates to App Store. We use App Store.

The point of a PWA is that instead of downloading an actual binary app, you essentially get a webpage that runs like it was an app. They can be installed from anywhere and are safe by nature because they're really just webpages.

That was the original conception of iPhone apps, until Steve Jobs realized just how much money could be made from the app store. Now you get to pay Apple a 30% cut for the privilege of installing software on your own device!

Re: Firefox 157 will include JPEG XL by default on all platforms

#72

Post by llm_nerd »

spartanatreyu wrote: post #68
llm_nerd wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What a funny tangent to go off on. JXL was dead. Apple is who brought it back to life[1], and the only reason Chrome resurrected JXL, and now Firefox followed their path, is because Apple pushed JXL support to a billion plus devices. I know people like complaining about Apple, but there's a "read the room" kind of moment where people just seem to either not know the context or are just knee jerking. [1] Worth noting…

> JXL was dead. Apple is who brought it back to life No, it was actually the PDF Association. They added JXL to the PDF standard. If google wanted to maintain support for displaying PDFs, they would need to add support for JXL.

The PDF consortium added JXL to the PDF spec two years after Apple deployed support to billions of devices. To anyone ackchyually paying attention to the JXL spec, lamenting that this superior format wallowed in obscurity (largely, it should be noted, because Google dumped it, and so many others just follow the leader of Google), Apple actually completely changed the path of the format's adoption.

Re: Firefox 157 will include JPEG XL by default on all platforms

#73

Post by _bent »

Implicated wrote: post #32
Sammi wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Webp lossy is better (compresses more with higher quality image results) than jpeg at everything except smooth gradients at high quality settings according to the research I remember doing. Webp lossy can't seem to get rid of banding until you go ultra high quality settings. Jpeg can show blue skies without banding at much more reasonable quality settings. So webp is better at anything where smaller files is preferre…

> JpegXL will be the best of all worlds choice in a few years when software support is good. Where is the software support lacking other than the browsers at this point?

The encoder currently isn't using a lot of format features like curves or layers (which would partially also require deeper integration in for example Photoshop to pass such information to the encoder).

Re: Firefox 157 will include JPEG XL by default on all platforms

#74

Post by HappMacDonald »

Implicated wrote: post #32
Sammi wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Webp lossy is better (compresses more with higher quality image results) than jpeg at everything except smooth gradients at high quality settings according to the research I remember doing. Webp lossy can't seem to get rid of banding until you go ultra high quality settings. Jpeg can show blue skies without banding at much more reasonable quality settings. So webp is better at anything where smaller files is preferre…

> JpegXL will be the best of all worlds choice in a few years when software support is good. Where is the software support lacking other than the browsers at this point?

File explorer support, thumbnails, local image viewers and editors, import into other media software like slideshows, video editors, 3d modeling software, etc etc.

Re: Firefox 157 will include JPEG XL by default on all platforms

#75

Post by HappMacDonald »

etatoby wrote: post #7
yboris wrote: post #2

I'm curious how many HN people in 2026 have not yet heard of JPEG XL / jxl

I have only heard of it in passing. I wonder what it adds beyond Webp and Avif.

For one of my projects the important advantage was "lossless compression similar to Webp and Avif (far better than PNG)", while ALSO supporting > 16kpx dimensions where Webp and Avif appear to max out

Re: Firefox 157 will include JPEG XL by default on all platforms

#76

Post by Dwedit »

Macha wrote: post #10
etatoby wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have only heard of it in passing. I wonder what it adds beyond Webp and Avif.

The big feature over other new formats is compatibility with legacy JPEGs. You can (simplified) take the raw data from a legacy JPEG, reformat it as a JPEG XL, and achieve like 20-30% filesize savings without any actual re-encode, just better packaging of the same data. While converting them to AVIF or webp is a lossy re-encode, and so loses quality. I think it's really this feature that has people wanting it still d…

Lossless Webp is still very good, and it decompresses very quickly. Lossless JXL compresses better, but decompresses much more slowly. Lossless AVIF is a joke.

Re: Firefox 157 will include JPEG XL by default on all platforms

#77

Post by bastawhiz »

phire wrote: post #41
Snafuh wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Luca Versari, one of the devs between both libraries, has a performance dashboard to compare performance between the two https://jxl-rs-perf.lucaversari.it/ jxl-rs started to outperform the C++ library 2 months ago.

As much as I enjoy rust, there is no reason why a c++ library can’t be optimised to match the rust implementation. It’s very rare that the actual performance benefits of rust implementations come from rust itself (though it does often push you to slightly better patterns). They usually come from the fact that rust implementations are usually a second (or 3rd, or 4th) iteration of the design, and the lessons learned h…

> The other benefit of rust is that the stronger type system makes it easier to iterate and optimise without bugs creeping in. But once optimisations are implemented in rust, there isn’t that much pain to porting them back to c++

The obvious reason not to do this is that you lose the safety properties of it being written in Rust. What assurance do you have that there's not a memory error in the C++ version? It's similar but not purely a mechanical translation. Yes, you can port it back to C++, you can also port it to C or assembly or anything else you want. But why would you, especially for something like a codec?

Re: Firefox 157 will include JPEG XL by default on all platforms

#78

Post by saagarjha »

josephg wrote: post #63
saagarjha wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Shipping unsafe C++ is easier on Apple platforms than Rust. This seems unlikely to change anytime soon.

Is it? I wrote a pure rust iOS app recently. It uses native controls, and looks and feels great. iOS and iOS-sim are both very well supported targets by the rust compiler.

You’re not shipping code as part of Safari

Re: Firefox 157 will include JPEG XL by default on all platforms

#79

Post by saagarjha »

dlahoda wrote: post #58
saagarjha wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Shipping unsafe C++ is easier on Apple platforms than Rust. This seems unlikely to change anytime soon.

I do not feel so. Not only Rust does C API, but Objective-C the way it allows to call Apple platform and call Apple compatible functions back. Also well integrated Rust programs(with platform calls and low level hardware access) are well compiled without Apple SDK. 3-4 kicking Rust solutions are easy findable in this area.

Just because it is possible or even easy does not mean it will happen.

Re: Firefox 157 will include JPEG XL by default on all platforms

#80

Post by trompetenaccoun »

Macha wrote: post #10
etatoby wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have only heard of it in passing. I wonder what it adds beyond Webp and Avif.

The big feature over other new formats is compatibility with legacy JPEGs. You can (simplified) take the raw data from a legacy JPEG, reformat it as a JPEG XL, and achieve like 20-30% filesize savings without any actual re-encode, just better packaging of the same data. While converting them to AVIF or webp is a lossy re-encode, and so loses quality. I think it's really this feature that has people wanting it still d…

There are some other advantages, such as jxl being able to progressively load in web broswers, while avif can't for some reason. However avif compression seems to be better at low qualities, which might be relevant for some web applications, if one doesn't want to serve both jxl and avif.

There's a good visual comparison here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SzsM4HMKmEI

Post reply on HN