6 ms·

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-

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.
        account42 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. I don't think getting the same JPEG is the goal here but getting a JPEG that decodes to the same image data.
        eru 7y ago
        If you can get all the pixels back exactly, getting the original jpeg back would only require a very small amount of extra data. But it might be more hassle than it's worth it to create the code and algorithms to do so.
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

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.
        account42 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. I don't think getting the same JPEG is the goal here but getting a JPEG that decodes to the same image data.
        eru 7y ago
        If you can get all the pixels back exactly, getting the original jpeg back would only require a very small amount of extra data. But it might be more hassle than it's worth it to create the code and algorithms to do so.

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