8 ms·

>Likely the format with the best chance of overthrowing the jpg/gif/png incumbents is AVIF I used to think the same as well, however I now think Jpeg XL is poi

>Likely the format with the best chance of overthrowing the jpg/gif/png incumbents is AVIF I used to think the same as well, however I now think Jpeg XL is poised to be the 'winner' among next gen image codecs. It's royalty free, great lossy and lossless compression which is said to beat the competition, as well as providing a perfect upgrade path for existing jpeg's as it can losslessly recompress them into the jpeg XL format with a ~20% size decrease (courtesy of the PIK project). It's slated for standardisation within a couple of weeks, it will be very interesting to see large-scale comparisons of this codec against the likes of AVIF and HEIF.

mceachen 7y ago
Interesting. Where have you seen that adoption will be swifter with JPEG XL instead of, say, AV1/AVIF? (Speaking as someone who's seen several open, licensing-unencumbered image/video/audio formats fail to get traction with a majority of browsers).
- BurningCycles 7y ago
  >Interesting. Where have you seen that adoption will be swifter with JPEG XL instead of, say, AV1/AVIF? Well, it's not finalized as of yet (though it is imminent), so rate of adoption is just pure guesswork at this stage. However, things I deem necessary for a new image codec to become the next 'de facto' standard are: royalty free major improvements over the current de facto standards Both AVIF and Jpeg XL tick these boxes, however Jpeg XL has another strong feature which is that it offers a lossless upgrade path for existing jpeg's with significantly improved compression as a bonus.
  - rjvs 7y ago
    So you're suggesting that the advantage JPEG XL has is that it will compress existing JPEGs better than FLIF or AVIF?
    - lukevp 7y ago
      Sounds like it will just take an existing JPEG and reduce the size, but not re-compress it - so even though the original JPEG is lossy, there will be no additional loss introduced, whereas another format not based on JPEG would require a re-encode pass that would lose additional information.
    - BurningCycles 7y ago
      Yes, it losslessly recompresses existing jpeg's into the jpeg XL format, while also making the files ~20% smaller, key point being lossless. Thus it is the 'perfect' upgrade path from jpeg which is the current lossy standard, as you will get better compression and no loss in quality when shifting to Jpeg XL. This being a 'killer feature' of course relies on Jpeg XL being very competitive with AVIF in terms of lossy/lossless compression overall.
      - setr 7y ago
        I'm assuming this is bidirectional? You can go back from XL to jpeg losslessly as well? If thats the case, I'm having trouble imagining a scenario where you're not correct; it'd be an utterly painless upgrade path
        BurningCycles 7y ago
        >You can go back from XL to jpeg losslessly as well I don't think so, but I don't quite see the point unless you are thinking of using it as a way to archive jpeg's, but in that case there are programs specifically for that, like PackJPG, Lepton etc.
        QasimK 7y ago
        How is it possible to have one-way only lossless compression?
        Dylan16807 7y ago
        Decompressing and recompressing a zip gives a lossless copy of the actual data, but there's no way to reconstruct the same exact zip you started with. The same thing can be done with image data. For something like jpeg you can keep the coefficients but store them in a more compact form. For what it's worth JPEG XL claims that it's 'reversible', but I'm not sure if that means you get your original jpeg back, byte for byte, or you get an equivalent jpeg back.
- Scaevolus 7y ago
  This presentation covers why AVIF isn't a great replacement for JPEG-- mostly that it's slow, complicated, and lacks a progressive mode. https://www.slideshare.net/cloudinarymarketing/imagecon-2019-jon-sneyer https://www.slideshare.net/cloudinarymarketing/imagecon-2019...
  - thaumasiotes 7y ago
    Why would the lack of a progressive mode matter? How is a progressive mode better than a "loading..." spinner?
    - nsomaru 7y ago
      The theory goes that it’s better to show the user something resembling the final image than showing them a generic loading spinner.
    - est31 7y ago
      The talk is by the FLIF author. One of the big marketing points for FLIF is its progressive mode. Of course every other codec will be criticized for not having one.
    - jstummbillig 7y ago
      Progressive mode is better than a loading spinner in the same way that PWAs are better than a loading spinner: By getting mostly usable content in as little time as possible to the user you decrease perceived wait, you decrease time to interactive and you increase perceived loading speed (even though time to full load might be the same or slightly increased).
      - GoblinSlayer 7y ago
        Did you confuse terminology? Web progressive is sort of an antonym to graphics progressive.
        jstummbillig 7y ago
modeless 7y ago
Does it have the feature where the file can be truncated to any size to form its own thumbnail? That would be an incredibly useful feature in so many applications.
- Scaevolus 7y ago
  It has a progressive mode, but not as aggressive of one as FLIF.
- ralusek 7y ago
  Surely not any size. It'd have to be squares or something for that to make any sense, right?
  - Dylan16807 7y ago
    Some amount of data at the end of the file won't be usable, but it's easy to make a format that's resilient to you chopping anywhere.
  - someguyorother 7y ago
    Some wavelet formats (SPIHT and EZW e.g) have the property that truncating the lossless version at 10% of the size gives you the 10:1 lossy rendering of that picture. That property holds not just for 10% but for any fraction of the file. It's not quite the same thing, but a very highly compressed high-res picture would probably look okay in thumbnail format.
edflsafoiewq 7y ago
It sounds interesting, although my initial impression is that it sound like it will suffer from the same daunting complexity that afflicted JPEG 2000.
- janwas 7y ago
  Good news: the reference software (http://gitlab.com/wg1/jpeg-xl http://gitlab.com/wg1/jpeg-xl) can decode about 50 Megapixels/s on a single Skylake core, with 3.1-3.7x speedup on 4 cores. Encoding throughput is configurable from ~1 MP/s to about 50 per core. That's somewhat slower than JPEG, but can be faster with multiple cores.
marton78 7y ago
JPEG XL is a terrible name for something that claims to produce extra small results.
- jonsneyers 7y ago
  It may not be the best name, but it sure is better than the names of the projects it was based on: PIK and FUIF. At least if you speak Dutch. A "pik" is a penis and a "fuif" is a party, so the combination would be the "penis party" image codec. I prefer "JPEG XL". The etymology of the name "XL" is as follows: JPEG has called all its new standards since j2k something that starts with an X: XR, XT, XS (S for speed, since it is very fast and ultra-low-latency), and now XL. The L is supposed to mean Long term, since the goal is to make something that can replace the legacy JPEG and last as long as it did.
  - stingraycharles 7y ago
    There might be an explanation around it, but I find it not much better than Apple with their iPhone XS. I agree that XL is a bad name, and I don’t think that “pik fuif” would matter a lot (I’m also Dutch). Could have been e.g. JPEG PF or JPEG LTS.
- l8rlump 7y ago
  PIK project is also a terrible name for people who understand Danish.
gardaani 7y ago
I hope that JPEG XL will be simpler than the competitors. If it's compression ratio is similar to AVIF and it can do HDR, then I'll all for it! AVIF (and its image sequences) seems to be fairly complicated. Here's few comments [1] about it: "Given all that I'm also beginning to understand why some folks want something simpler like webp2 :)" "Despite authoring libavif (library, not the standard) and being a big fan of the AV1 codec, I do occasionally find HEIF/AVIF as a format to be a bit "it can do anything!", which is likely to lead to huge or fragmented/incomplete implementations." Anyway, instead of adding FLIF, AVIF, BPG, and lots of similar image formats to web browsers, I think only one good format is enough and JPEG XR might be it. After something has been added to web browsers, it can't be removed. Safari hasn't added support for WebP (which is good, there's no need for WebP after AVIF/JPEG XR is out) and it hasn't added support for HEIF (which is weird, considering Apple is using it on iOS), but maybe they know that there's no need to rush. [1] https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=960620#c33 https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=960620...
- jhabdas 7y ago
  Browsers don't need the codecs anyway. They just need Wasm and a decoder. Clients can do the work[1] until the hardware supports the goods. [1] https://git.habd.as/comfusion/fractal-forest/src/branch/master/Dockerfile https://git.habd.as/comfusion/fractal-forest/src/branch/mast...
  - bscphil 7y ago
    The example you linked to is pretty telling, because not only do the BPG images decode more slowly than natively supported images, the javascript decoding approach apparently breaks the browser's (Firefox's) color management. I think native support is needed for newer codecs to be viable for more than simple demos.
    - spider-mario 7y ago
      Chrome appears to interpret the canvas as sRGB and to convert from that, but that means that images decoded that way are effectively limited to sRGB until the canvas API allows specifying other colorspaces.

mceachen 7y ago

Interesting. Where have you seen that adoption will be swifter with JPEG XL instead of, say, AV1/AVIF? (Speaking as someone who's seen several open, licensing-unencumbered image/video/audio formats fail to get traction with a majority of browsers).

BurningCycles 7y ago
>Interesting. Where have you seen that adoption will be swifter with JPEG XL instead of, say, AV1/AVIF? Well, it's not finalized as of yet (though it is imminent), so rate of adoption is just pure guesswork at this stage. However, things I deem necessary for a new image codec to become the next 'de facto' standard are: royalty free major improvements over the current de facto standards Both AVIF and Jpeg XL tick these boxes, however Jpeg XL has another strong feature which is that it offers a lossless upgrade path for existing jpeg's with significantly improved compression as a bonus.
- rjvs 7y ago
  So you're suggesting that the advantage JPEG XL has is that it will compress existing JPEGs better than FLIF or AVIF?
  - lukevp 7y ago
    Sounds like it will just take an existing JPEG and reduce the size, but not re-compress it - so even though the original JPEG is lossy, there will be no additional loss introduced, whereas another format not based on JPEG would require a re-encode pass that would lose additional information.
  - BurningCycles 7y ago
    Yes, it losslessly recompresses existing jpeg's into the jpeg XL format, while also making the files ~20% smaller, key point being lossless. Thus it is the 'perfect' upgrade path from jpeg which is the current lossy standard, as you will get better compression and no loss in quality when shifting to Jpeg XL. This being a 'killer feature' of course relies on Jpeg XL being very competitive with AVIF in terms of lossy/lossless compression overall.
    - setr 7y ago
      I'm assuming this is bidirectional? You can go back from XL to jpeg losslessly as well? If thats the case, I'm having trouble imagining a scenario where you're not correct; it'd be an utterly painless upgrade path
      - BurningCycles 7y ago
        >You can go back from XL to jpeg losslessly as well I don't think so, but I don't quite see the point unless you are thinking of using it as a way to archive jpeg's, but in that case there are programs specifically for that, like PackJPG, Lepton etc.
        QasimK 7y ago
        How is it possible to have one-way only lossless compression?
        Dylan16807 7y ago
        Decompressing and recompressing a zip gives a lossless copy of the actual data, but there's no way to reconstruct the same exact zip you started with. The same thing can be done with image data. For something like jpeg you can keep the coefficients but store them in a more compact form. For what it's worth JPEG XL claims that it's 'reversible', but I'm not sure if that means you get your original jpeg back, byte for byte, or you get an equivalent jpeg back.
Scaevolus 7y ago
This presentation covers why AVIF isn't a great replacement for JPEG-- mostly that it's slow, complicated, and lacks a progressive mode. https://www.slideshare.net/cloudinarymarketing/imagecon-2019-jon-sneyer https://www.slideshare.net/cloudinarymarketing/imagecon-2019...
- thaumasiotes 7y ago
  Why would the lack of a progressive mode matter? How is a progressive mode better than a "loading..." spinner?
  - nsomaru 7y ago
    The theory goes that it’s better to show the user something resembling the final image than showing them a generic loading spinner.
  - est31 7y ago
    The talk is by the FLIF author. One of the big marketing points for FLIF is its progressive mode. Of course every other codec will be criticized for not having one.
  - jstummbillig 7y ago
    Progressive mode is better than a loading spinner in the same way that PWAs are better than a loading spinner: By getting mostly usable content in as little time as possible to the user you decrease perceived wait, you decrease time to interactive and you increase perceived loading speed (even though time to full load might be the same or slightly increased).
    - GoblinSlayer 7y ago
      Did you confuse terminology? Web progressive is sort of an antonym to graphics progressive.
      - jstummbillig 7y ago

modeless 7y ago

Does it have the feature where the file can be truncated to any size to form its own thumbnail? That would be an incredibly useful feature in so many applications.

Scaevolus 7y ago
It has a progressive mode, but not as aggressive of one as FLIF.
ralusek 7y ago
Surely not any size. It'd have to be squares or something for that to make any sense, right?
- Dylan16807 7y ago
  Some amount of data at the end of the file won't be usable, but it's easy to make a format that's resilient to you chopping anywhere.
- someguyorother 7y ago
  Some wavelet formats (SPIHT and EZW e.g) have the property that truncating the lossless version at 10% of the size gives you the 10:1 lossy rendering of that picture. That property holds not just for 10% but for any fraction of the file. It's not quite the same thing, but a very highly compressed high-res picture would probably look okay in thumbnail format.

edflsafoiewq 7y ago

It sounds interesting, although my initial impression is that it sound like it will suffer from the same daunting complexity that afflicted JPEG 2000.

janwas 7y ago
Good news: the reference software (http://gitlab.com/wg1/jpeg-xl http://gitlab.com/wg1/jpeg-xl) can decode about 50 Megapixels/s on a single Skylake core, with 3.1-3.7x speedup on 4 cores. Encoding throughput is configurable from ~1 MP/s to about 50 per core. That's somewhat slower than JPEG, but can be faster with multiple cores.

marton78 7y ago

JPEG XL is a terrible name for something that claims to produce extra small results.

jonsneyers 7y ago
It may not be the best name, but it sure is better than the names of the projects it was based on: PIK and FUIF. At least if you speak Dutch. A "pik" is a penis and a "fuif" is a party, so the combination would be the "penis party" image codec. I prefer "JPEG XL". The etymology of the name "XL" is as follows: JPEG has called all its new standards since j2k something that starts with an X: XR, XT, XS (S for speed, since it is very fast and ultra-low-latency), and now XL. The L is supposed to mean Long term, since the goal is to make something that can replace the legacy JPEG and last as long as it did.
- stingraycharles 7y ago
  There might be an explanation around it, but I find it not much better than Apple with their iPhone XS. I agree that XL is a bad name, and I don’t think that “pik fuif” would matter a lot (I’m also Dutch). Could have been e.g. JPEG PF or JPEG LTS.
l8rlump 7y ago
PIK project is also a terrible name for people who understand Danish.

gardaani 7y ago

I hope that JPEG XL will be simpler than the competitors. If it's compression ratio is similar to AVIF and it can do HDR, then I'll all for it! AVIF (and its image sequences) seems to be fairly complicated. Here's few comments [1] about it: "Given all that I'm also beginning to understand why some folks want something simpler like webp2 :)" "Despite authoring libavif (library, not the standard) and being a big fan of the AV1 codec, I do occasionally find HEIF/AVIF as a format to be a bit "it can do anything!", which is likely to lead to huge or fragmented/incomplete implementations." Anyway, instead of adding FLIF, AVIF, BPG, and lots of similar image formats to web browsers, I think only one good format is enough and JPEG XR might be it. After something has been added to web browsers, it can't be removed. Safari hasn't added support for WebP (which is good, there's no need for WebP after AVIF/JPEG XR is out) and it hasn't added support for HEIF (which is weird, considering Apple is using it on iOS), but maybe they know that there's no need to rush. [1] https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=960620#c33 https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=960620...

jhabdas 7y ago
Browsers don't need the codecs anyway. They just need Wasm and a decoder. Clients can do the work[1] until the hardware supports the goods. [1] https://git.habd.as/comfusion/fractal-forest/src/branch/master/Dockerfile https://git.habd.as/comfusion/fractal-forest/src/branch/mast...
- bscphil 7y ago
  The example you linked to is pretty telling, because not only do the BPG images decode more slowly than natively supported images, the javascript decoding approach apparently breaks the browser's (Firefox's) color management. I think native support is needed for newer codecs to be viable for more than simple demos.
  - spider-mario 7y ago
    Chrome appears to interpret the canvas as sRGB and to convert from that, but that means that images decoded that way are effectively limited to sRGB until the canvas API allows specifying other colorspaces.