JPEG XL Test Page • Hacker News Board

Re: JPEG XL Test Page

#121

Post by jomohke » Thu, Jan 22, 2026, 1:46 AM UTC

amarant wrote: post #75

wmwragg wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You probably want the JPEG XL Info[1] site then. A nice site outlining what JPEG XL actually is. [1] https://jpegxl.info/

While I get why, it bugs me that they have comparison images between jxl and other formats, yet it doesn't actually use jxl, as evidenced by all images displaying correctly on my chrome browser.

This is standard practice. They need to use current lossless formats to display examples to people who don't have the format yet. They are still showing accurate examples of compression artifacts. I'm not sure what else you'd expect them to do.

Re: JPEG XL Test Page

#122

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Jan 22, 2026, 4:28 AM UTC

[deleted]

Re: JPEG XL Test Page

#123

Post by Dylan16807 » Thu, Jan 22, 2026, 6:51 AM UTC

p_ing wrote: post #119

Dylan16807 wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

> They're not in the business of converting a user's file type from one to another.

Their job is getting an image file into reality, not to be the absent owner of a big machine.

> That would be inconsistent from what the user sent.

If the machine accepts some type of normal image file, then they can losslessly convert other file formats to that type. There is nothing inconsistent about that.

Re: JPEG XL Test Page

#124

Post by bigbuppo » Thu, Jan 22, 2026, 7:02 AM UTC

unglaublich wrote: post #22

I think JPEG XL's naming was unfortunate. People want to associate new image formats with leanness, lightness, efficiency.

It's JPEG Extra Lovely.

Re: JPEG XL Test Page

#125

Post by bpbp-mango » Thu, Jan 22, 2026, 8:05 AM UTC

capitainenemo wrote: post #82

numbers wrote: post #76

I'm seeing the image on zen which is a firefox fork but not on firefox itself :/ even with `image.jxl.enabled` I don't see it on firefox

Checking the Firefox bugs on this, it seems they decided to replace the C++ libjxl with a rust version which is a WIP, to address security concerns with the implementation. All this started a few months ago. Maybe the zen fork is a bit older and still using the C++ one?

good. image parsing has produced so many bad RCEs.

Re: JPEG XL Test Page

#126

Post by breve » Thu, Jan 22, 2026, 8:23 AM UTC

pkulak wrote: post #106

senfiaj wrote: post #95

Starting from v145 Chrome supports JXL. There is also an extension for this: https://chromewebstore.google.com/detail/jpeg-xl-viewer/bkhd...

And Firefox: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/jxl/

It's a good use case for WebAssembly. For browsers that don't yet support JPEG XL natively the page could provide a wasm decoder.

Like this demo page: https://bevara.github.io/Showcase/libjxl/

Re: JPEG XL Test Page

#127

Post by extraduder_ire » Thu, Jan 22, 2026, 8:36 AM UTC

fleabitdev wrote: post #57

unglaublich wrote: post #22

I think JPEG XL's naming was unfortunate. People want to associate new image formats with leanness, lightness, efficiency.

There was a constraint - since 2009, the Joint Photographic Experts Group had published JPEG XR, JPEG XT and JPEG XS, and they were probably reluctant to break that naming scheme. They're running out of good options, but I hope they stick with it long enough to release "JPEG XP" :-)

They can tack on more letters, or increment the X, as required.

Re: JPEG XL Test Page

#128

Post by demetris » Thu, Jan 22, 2026, 8:43 AM UTC

I published some benchmarks recently:

https://op111.net/posts/2025/10/png-and-modern-formats-lossl...

I compare PNG and the four modern formats, AVIF, HEIF, WebP, JPEG XL, on tasks/images that PNG was designed for. (Not on photographs or lossy compression.)

Re: JPEG XL Test Page

#129

Post by somat » Thu, Jan 22, 2026, 9:17 AM UTC

gcr wrote: post #110

One 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…

On the subject of tiff, why is it not used more? I mean, it is more or less really a container format right. Why are we not using it all over the place but with modern compression methods?

Re: JPEG XL Test Page

#130

Post by mort96 » Thu, Jan 22, 2026, 9:26 AM UTC

jiggawatts wrote: post #96

Support 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.

HDR support is an anti-feature. Nobody want a part of a website to suddenly be 10x as bright as pure white.