Mozilla Presents Their Plan For Shipping JPEG-XL In Firefox 157
www.phoronix.com

Looks like JPEG XL is BACK ON THE MENU BAYBEE!!

Not really news I guess, you already have JXL in some form in current Firefox but YIPEE etc

EDIT: I have become the JPEG-XL joker. When I make the news, the https://jpegxl.info/ url will be in my manifesto.

  • SootySootySoot [any]@hexbear.netEnglish
    2·
    2 months ago

    Two or three competing standards? Maybe I am being too ugg but my understanding would say there are loads of competing standards for image formats which have meaningful frequency. PNG, JPEG, WEBP, GIF, APNG, AVIF, SVG, BMP, ICO, TIFF are the obvious ones, that makes 10. You could arguably go further, e.g. there are (very limited) use cases for storing an image as a .pdf file. But you could definitely easily come across 10 in a day online.

    My 1-minute experiment now suggests JXL has a 30% size saving on PNG, which is about the same as webp. I also think there can be downsides to explicitly combining lossy and lossless formats under one file extension.

    I’m not saying JXL isn’t great, it may well be. It certainly seems like it has plenty good use cases. I just think there are a lot of subjective bases that mean it’s not always necessarily a notably preferable format. And so long as that’s true, we’ll go from 10 competing standards to 11, which comes with a cost of its own.

    Nonetheless, I think your support and promulgation of JXL is super cool, and I do thoroughly respecc’ it. If we replace all image formats with JXL tomorrow I won’t be mad.

    • ashinadash [she/her]@hexbear.netOPEnglish
      1·
      2 months ago

      Maybe my internet use is too limited given it’s been ages since I last saw a .tif, .bmp or anything like that online. Also I thought .svg was mostly for photoshop or the GNU image manipulation program… Nobody posts in these formats, right?

      Mostly though I view AVIF vs JXL as a competition for “what should replace jpegs” which I don’t think any of the other mentioned formats can do.

      suggests JXL has a 30% size saving on PNG, which is about the same as webp.

      And JXL sure produces better visual results than webp in many cases… I don’t disagree that the lossless mode is slightly pointless tho, yes. Mostly I just think JXL could drop in and directly replace JPEG, it seems designed to, although it’s not an extension of the format, fwiw. Maybe JPEG is just good enough for most people and that’s that.

      Nonetheless, I think your support and promulgation of JXL is super cool, and I do thoroughly respecc’ it.

      Sometimes this autism shit kinda fucking sucks, I don’t know how to feel that I am now the unofficial spokesdork for The JPEG Consortium’s Brave JPEG-XL Initiative… I mean, thanks? I find it fun to read about the formats and related standards that make up every day files, (I fucking loved reading all about DVD) and it results in this, I guess.