Also checkout - https://jpegxl.info/resources/jpeg-xl-test-page
Works great on PaleMoon, one of the earliest browsers to support JPEG XL and "Global Privacy Control" ( https://globalprivacycontrol.org/ ).
JPEG XL Test Page
111–120 of 170 posts
Re: JPEG XL Test Page
#112Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Hopefully my photo processor will accept JPEG XL in the near future! Aren't print shops, machining shops, other small manufacturers etc. ones that always lag behind with emerging technologies?
Yes, because those systems cost gobs of money. You don't replace them just for the hot new thing.
Replace? Why bring that up?
The company that owns whatever system can and should be able to convert formats.
Re: JPEG XL Test Page
#113Earlier quoted context omitted.
Crappy as a .jpg, only bigger. Actually, I remember when JPEG XL came out, and I just thought: cool, file that one away for when I have a really big image I need to display. Which turned out to be never. Names have consequences.
> Crappy as a .jpg, only bigger. Honestly, that's exactly what it sounds like to me too. I know it's not, but it's still what it sounds like. And it's just way too many letters total. When we have "giff" and "ping" as one-syllable names, "jay-peg-ex-ell" is unfortunate. Really should have been an entirely new name, rather than extending what is already an ugly acronym.
[deleted]
Re: JPEG XL Test Page
#114https://caniuse.com/jpegxl
Surprised to see it working on iOS 17.
Re: JPEG XL Test Page
#115One thing I like about JPEG-XL is that it supports all kinds of weird image formats. For example, I used to work with depth data a lot, which is best expressed as monochrome 16-bit floating point images. Previously, TIFF was the only format that supported this. Many shops would instead save depth images as UINT16 .PNG files, where the raw pixel intensity maps to the camera distance in mm. The problem with this is tha…
There is also FITS, but that is mainly for astronomical applications (and is in general an insane and terrible format). But it supports tons of types!
Re: JPEG XL Test Page
#116Support is not a boolean. A proper test page should have HDR images, images testing if 10-bit gradients are posterised to 8-bit or displayed smoothly, etc... iOS for example can show a JPEG XL image, but can't forward it in iMessage to someone else.
There have been a few other test pages posted in the comments with varying degrees of additional context.
https://jpegxl.info/resources/jpeg-xl-test-page https://caniuse.com/jpegxl
Re: JPEG XL Test Page
#117Looks like it works in Brave
Doesn't work in Brave. (Using v1.86.139)
Re: JPEG XL Test Page
#118JPEG XL is also good, but why not use AVIF? It's widely supported by browsers, and rivals JPEG XL in being the best lossy image format.
Jake Archibald has an excellent post about progressive image rendering, including some metrics on JPEG XL compared to AVIF[0]. > "I was also surprised to see that, in Safari, JPEG XL takes 150% longer (as in 2.5x) to decode vs an equivalent AVIF. That's 17ms longer on my M4 Pro. Apple hardware tends to be high-end, but this could still be significant. This isn't related to progressive rendering; the decoder is just s…
Strange, as Cloudinary's test had the opposite conclusion -- jpegxl was significantly faster to decode than avif. Did the decoders change rapidly in a year, or was it a switch to new ones (the rust reimplementation)?
https://cloudinary.com/blog/jpeg-xl-and-the-pareto-front
If decode speed is an issue, it's notable that avif varied a lot depending on encode settings in their test:
> Interestingly, the decode speed of AVIF depends on how the image was encoded: it is faster when using the faster-but-slightly-worse multi-tile encoding, slower when using the default single-tile encoding.
Re: JPEG XL Test Page
#119Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, because those systems cost gobs of money. You don't replace them just for the hot new thing.
Replace? Why bring that up? The company that owns whatever system can and should be able to convert formats.
They request formats that their equipment handles. They're not in the business of converting a user's file type from one to another. That would be inconsistent from what the user sent.
Here's who I order from, you can see the particulars of what they request.
https://support.bayphoto.com/hc/en-us/articles/4026658357979...
Re: JPEG XL Test Page
#120Orion, and presumably other Webkit-based browsers that are actually up-to-date, can also see the image. Hopefully my photo processor will accept JPEG XL in the near future!
Yup, Gnome Web loads it just fine! Man, it really is a great browser. I try to switch to it every 6 months, but then I remember that it doesn't support extensions at all. I could give up everything, but not 1Password. Nothing is worth copy/pasting credentials and losing passkeys entirely.
Have you tried KeePassXL with SyncThing? I've heard good things about that setup.