Technology

59389 readers

2959 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

Follow the lemmy.world rules.
Only tech related content.
Be excellent to each another!
Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
Politics threads may be removed.
No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

Browser maker love-in snubs Google-shunned JPEG XL (www.theregister.com)

submitted 9 months ago by AnActOfCreation@programming.dev to c/technology@lemmy.world

61 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Browser makers Apple, Google, Microsoft, and Mozilla have announced Interop 2024, a project to promote web browser interoperability.
JPEG XL, a potential replacement for JPEG and PNG image formats, was not included in Interop 2024.
The rejection of JPEG XL has been blamed on Google, with the Google Chrome team deciding not to support the image compression technology.

Archive link: https://archive.ph/nulY6

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] ItsMeSpez@lemmy.world 19 points 9 months ago (2 children)

"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?

[–] exocortex@discuss.tchncs.de 10 points 9 months ago (1 children)

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 https://cloudinary.com/blog/the-case-for-jpeg-xl

[–] GamingChairModel@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago

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 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

Perhaps true from his... perspective. I've found JXL surprisingly awesome and easy to use (size, quality, speed, intuitive encoding options with lossless, supported in XnView & XnConvert for easy batches). AVIF was terrible in real-world use last I tried (and blurs fine details).

I'm still a big Mozilla & Firefox fan, but a few decisions over past few years seem like they're being dictated or vetoed by a few lofty individuals (while ignoring popular user requests). Sad.