Comment on Browser maker love-in snubs Google-shunned JPEG XL
ItsMeSpez@lemmy.world 9 months ago
“Overall, we don’t see JPEG-XL performing enough better than its closest competitors (like AVIF) to justify addition on that basis alone,” said Martin Thomson, distinguished engineer at Mozilla, last year. “Similarly, its feature advancements don’t distinguish it above the collection of formats that are already included in the platform.”
So is this a legit take on the technology? Sounds like an expert in the field is pretty convinced that this file format isn’t really worth it’s weight. What does JXL give the web that other file formats don’t?
I’ve read a comparison of several newer file formats (avif, heic, webp) with jpeg-xl. The conclusion was that jpeg-xl was on par in terms of compression, sometimes better and very fast. also it can re-compress jpgs directly.
here’s an article describing it cloudinary.com/blog/the-case-for-jpeg-xl
The big thing, to me, is that it can losslessly encode JPEGs, the dominant format for allllll sorts of archived images. That’s huge for migration of images that don’t necessarily exist in any other format.
Plus, as I understand it, JPEG XL performs better at those video-derived formats at lossless high resolution applications relating to physical printing and scanning workflows, or encoding in new or custom color spaces. It’s designed to work in a broader set of applications than the others, beyond just web images in a browser.
vanontom@lemmy.world 9 months ago
Perhaps true from his… perspective. I’ve found JXL surprisingly awesome and easy to use (size, quality, speed, encoding options, supported in XnView /XnConvert). AVIF was terrible in real-world use last I tried (and blurs fine details).