3 ms·

I'm looking at an original vs jpeg-xl in lossless and it seems that jpeg-xl alters the colors (blue in particular) noticeably? https://eclipseo.github.io/image

by znpy 5y ago

I'm looking at an original vs jpeg-xl in lossless and it seems that jpeg-xl alters the colors (blue in particular) noticeably? https://eclipseo.github.io/image-comparison-web/#abandonned-factory&Original=ll&JXL=ll&subset1 https://eclipseo.github.io/image-comparison-web/#abandonned-... Not sure if this is a good or bad thing. EDIT: Looking at https://eclipseo.github.io/image-comparison-web/#japan-expo&Original=ll&JXL=ll&subset1 https://eclipseo.github.io/image-comparison-web/#japan-expo&... some details about the metallic structure in the background are noticeably worse (less defined) in the jpeg-xl version.

jerryX 5y ago
In Chrome it looks identical.
jonsneyers 5y ago
If Original vs Lossless does not look the same, it is because your browser does not do color management correctly. JPEG XL's lossless is mathematically lossless, so there cannot be any actual difference. What can happen though is that the "Original PNG" doesn't have an ICC profile and gets treated by your browser in a different way than the PNG produced by the jxl decoder. This is a problem of your browser though, not of JPEG XL, and likely the image you see for "lossless JPEG XL" is the correct one.
- 0-_-0 5y ago
  According to IrfanView, the Lossless JPEG XL one has 167959 unique colors, while the original one has 233263. For me it looks different in Firefox, the same in Brave (the uncompressed one in Firefox is the odd one out)
  - jonsneyers 5y ago
    I'm curious how IrfanView is counting colors then.
GrinningFool 5y ago
Both comparisons appear identical to me in Firefox.
markdog12 5y ago
Looks identical on Windows, Chrome Canary 93.0.4549.0