• fdnomad@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    3 hours ago

    […] today we posted our intent to ship JPEG XL. Chrome are also intending to ship, and given there’s already a partial implementation in Safari, the format will be supported across browsers before the end of the year.

    Hoping for the best 🙏

  • ikt@aussie.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    3 hours ago

    What is the big gain over AVIF?

    It’s great at lossless? but I never use lossless for web images

    • AlteredEgo@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      1 hour ago
      1. “lossless” reencoding of jpeg
      2. Encoding with “butteraugli distance =1” ensures that you compress optimally without the human eye being able to see the difference, it’s an awesome “fire and forget” setting for all your images besides lossless. You basically don’t have to guess or check your saved image if it looks good enough.
      3. Unlimited size, multiple layers, better colors, more bit depth. Avif has severe limitations as an image format.

      But for specific cases like comics and stronger compression at about 60% quality it’s currently better. I’ve heard jpegXL encoders still have some ways to improve though. For stronger compression avif can use “ssimulacra2” which is a great metric to avoid compression artifacts for encoders. So ideally jpegXL would support both butteraugly (high quality) and simulacra2 for low quality / high compression.

    • lime!@feddit.nu
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      edit-2
      3 hours ago

      the big win is that it can re-encode existing jpegs to shrink them by like 30%. also the image is compressed spatially (i think that’s the word) so it can be displayed as it’s downloading rather than coming in line by line.

      • pHr34kY@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        3 hours ago

        I think many of us have several GBs of JPEGs that have accumulated over the years. It would be nice to shrink them a bit.

        However I wouldn’t do it until the majority of my software supports it. At least with JXL, you can transcode it back to legacy jpeg without losing quality

        • deadcream@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 hour ago

          The biggest hurdle are messengers, especially including cross-platform support and mobile devices.