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

JPEG XL Test Page

tildeweb.nl

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 170 posts

Re: JPEG XL Test Page

#131

Post by Dylan16807 »

encrypted_bird wrote: post #120
pkulak wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

For what purpose? While it's a perfectly good password manager, when used with Gnome Web it also means copy/pasting passwords and losing passkeys. Doesn't it?

Re: JPEG XL Test Page

#133

Post by Santosh83 »

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/

Wonderful. Allow an "unmonitored" extension from a random stranger on the Internet have access to "all data for all websites" just to support an image format for which Mozilla should have long built in native support...

Re: JPEG XL Test Page

#135

Post by [deleted] »

Santosh83 wrote: post #133
pkulak wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Wonderful. Allow an "unmonitored" extension from a random stranger on the Internet have access to "all data for all websites" just to support an image format for which Mozilla should have long built in native support...

[deleted]

Re: JPEG XL Test Page

#136

Post by enimodas »

demetris wrote: post #128

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.)

Would be nice to also see decompression speed and maybe a photo as a bonus round.

Re: JPEG XL Test Page

#137

Post by rkangel »

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?

Google Chrome is using a Rust implementation. The existence and sufficient maturity of it is the reason they were willing to merge support in the first place.

Re: JPEG XL Test Page

#138

Post by GuB-42 »

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…

> One thing I like about JPEG-XL is that it supports all kinds of weird image formats.

And it is probably the reason why browser vendors disliked it. Lots of complexity, it means a big library, which is high maintenance with a big attack surface. By comparison, webp is "free" if you have webm, as webp is essentially a single frame video.

Re: JPEG XL Test Page

#139

Post by Vinnl »

Santosh83 wrote: post #133
pkulak wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Wonderful. Allow an "unmonitored" extension from a random stranger on the Internet have access to "all data for all websites" just to support an image format for which Mozilla should have long built in native support...

Security concerns are exactly the reason the format doesn't have native support yet. However: https://github.com/mozilla/standards-positions/pull/1064

Re: JPEG XL Test Page

#140

Post by billynomates »

Unrelated but I read "it did not saw" and immediately thought, this person is Dutch. Then I saw the .nl domain. Not sure if this double-conjugation mistake is common in other ESL speakers but I hear it a lot living in the Netherlands.
Post reply on HN