It has a higher bit depth at orders of magnitude less file size. Admittedly it has a smaller max dimension, though the max for PNG is (I believe) purely theoretical.
Comment on JPEG is Dying - And that's a bad thing | 2kliksphilip
TheRealKuni@lemmy.world 1 month agoCompared to something like JPEG XL? It is hands down worse in virtually all metrics.
Only thing I can think of is that PNG is inherently lossless. Whereas JPEG XL can be lossless or lossy.
KairuByte@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 month ago
hedgehog@ttrpg.network 1 month ago
I haven’t dug into the test data or methodology myself but I read a discussion thread recently (on Reddit - /r/jpegxl/comments/l9ta2u/how_does_lossless_jpegxl_compared_to_png) - across a 200+ image test suite, the lossless compression of PNG generates files that are 162% the size of those losslessly compressed with JPEG XL.
However I also know that some tools have bad performance compressing PNG, and no certainty that those weren’t used