15 ms·
PSA: For images, there's a finally successor to jpeg: JPEG XL (.jxl) - has lossy and lossless mode; is progressive (you can download just the first parts of the
by yboris 5y ago
PSA: For images, there's a finally successor to jpeg: JPEG XL (.jxl) - has lossy and lossless mode; is progressive (you can download just the first parts of the bitstream to get a lower resolution image; and other benefits!)
https://jpegxl.info/ https://jpegxl.info/
- Cthulhu_ 5y ago"Your browser does not support JPEG XL"; I'm sure it's cool technology but whoever is behind it needs to hire developers and advocates to push code to Webkit / Blink to add support for it, else it won't get mainstream adoption.
- FrenchAmerican 5y agoI have read that both Chrome and Firefox now support it if one enable the proper option in the about:config page (and its Chrome equivalent, but I avoid Chrome by principle). It's in my to do-list in the coming weeks, I have not verified this yet.
- Aachen 5y agofor those that want to try: set image.jxl.enabled and restart the browser (via https://jpegxl.io/tutorials/firefox/#firefoxjpegxltutorial https://jpegxl.io/tutorials/firefox/#firefoxjpegxltutorial)
- mekster 5y agoSo, once again Safari isn't on the list which hinders adoption. I really wish it stop behaving like IE by being on its own.
- jug 5y agoIt’s available behind a flag, perhaps awaiting v1.0 in the reference implementation or something. I really hope it takes off. There was a bit poor timing because widespread AVIF support happened _right_ before and now we need to beg browser vendors to adopt JPEG XL! I hope they don't balk at it for starting introduce too much file format cruft because JPEG XL is really, really something they should implement. It can succeed JPEG as well as PNG (lossless JPEG XL tend to destroy even optimized PNG). I'd much rather abandon AVIF support. It's just one of those annoying single-video-frame-as-a-picture hacks like WebP and HEIF without drive to make them outstanding image formats on their own for photography as well as line art.
- smellf 5y agoFrom their webpage: Chrome: behind a flag since version 91.0.4470.0 Firefox: behind a flag since version 90.0a1 Edge: behind a flag since version 91 Opera: behind a flag since version 77 ImageMagick: since version 7.0.10-54 XnView MP: since version 0.97.0 ImageGlass: since version 8.1.4.18 ExifTool: since version 12.23 gThumb: since version 3.11.3 OpenMandriva Lx: since version 4.3 RC GIMP: since version 2.99.8 qimgv: since version 1.0.0 PhotoQt: since version 2.4 jxl-winthumb: with WIC-codec since version 0.1.11 KImageFormats: since version 5.89.0
- adzm 5y agoLossless JPEG transcoding is the killer feature moving forward from existing images. I can't wait for jxl's broad adoption.
- rini17 5y agoIf it's fast enough maybe it could be done in browser? Instant backward compatibility!
- lnanek2 5y agoAs a mobile developer I generally see WEBP getting served to Android devices and HEIC to Apple devices. Is there any advantage to JPEG XL over those? If our app supported older iOS devices, maybe JPEG would be needed as a fallback, but it seems like JPEG XL wouldn't be compatible with old devices anyway, right?
- Markoff 5y agoyou can serve new devices with JPEG XL and convert it back to JPEG without loss on server for old devices
- mkl 5y agoI think you might have that backwards. JPEG can be losslessly converted to JPEG XL with better compression (~20% smaller), but I haven't seen anything about going the other direction. I'm not sure how it would be possible with JPEG XL's different sized blocks and different available transforms. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JPEG_XL https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JPEG_XL
- brigade 5y agoThe JPEG -> JXL conversion is reversible, so you can encode JPEG -> convert JXL -> convert back to JPEG as needed. You could potentially encode a JPEG-XL directly with the subset that can be converted back to JPEG, but it's not clear to me if libjxl currently implements that. Either way, it's not that useful for anyone that's already deploying post-JPEG formats; even WebP should save more than 20%. Mostly it's useful for CDNs and SaaS companies like Cloudinary to transparently deploy JPEG-XL for JPEG-only customers.
- remram 5y agoDo you mean that you would want that to happen on the web server, if they detect a user-agent that doesn't support JXL, they would convert back to JPEG? That seems pointlessly costly in CPU. Also like mkl said, there doesn't seem to be any evidence that JXL->JPEG can be done losslessly.
- AceJohnny2 5y agoDid they avoid the prohibitive licensing that left JPEG 2000 dead in the water?
- Markoff 5y agoshould be FOSS and loyalty free https://gitlab.com/wg1/jpeg-xl/-/blob/main/LICENSE https://gitlab.com/wg1/jpeg-xl/-/blob/main/LICENSE
- catach 5y agoThere's this MS patent though? https://www.theregister.com/2022/02/17/microsoft_ans_patent/ https://www.theregister.com/2022/02/17/microsoft_ans_patent/
- coldpie 5y agoThat license doesn't say anything about patents. This one does: https://gitlab.com/wg1/jpeg-xl/-/blob/main/PATENTS https://gitlab.com/wg1/jpeg-xl/-/blob/main/PATENTS and only says that patents owned by Google are covered. So it may be that other companies patent the technology. The information in the repository is not enough to decide whether JPEG XL is safe to use.
- astrange 5y agoJPEG2000 wasn't technically better enough; wavelets are too blurry and less efficient to decode. For some reason there was an epidemic of terrible codec designs for a decade or two, though it could've all been patent avoidance.
- rasz 5y agoSo bad its still industry standard in Cinema quality video codecs? Like the obfuscated jpeg2000 in RED codec.
- astrange 5y agoWho says they know what they're doing? DCI (how movies are sent to theaters) does use JPEG2000, but I think they just wanted something with 12-bit video and that's pretty rare in any codec. One advantage is if you want to decode the same picture at lower resolutions; JPEG can do this equivalent to nearest-neighbor, wavelets can do it equivalent to a better filter than that. But still not as good as just decoding and resizing down.
- tinus_hn 5y agoJPEG similarly has a progressive mode. The problem with these formats is that they don’t offer enough of an advantage to overcome the disadvantage of have less than the enormous install base of JPEG. Look how much better PNG is than GIF and realize it only succeeded in replacing it (for static images) because of the Unisys patent suits, not because it’s so much better.
- account42 5y ago> Look how much better PNG is than GIF and realize it only succeeded in replacing it (for static images) because of the Unisys patent suits, not because it’s so much better. GIF being limited to 8bpp would have meant that it would have been replaced eventually anyway.
- Auracle 5y agoAs a professional photographer I can’t believe we’ve been stuck with jpeg so long - 8 bits simply aren’t enough and lossy saving is a bummer. I’ll need both Capture One and Lightroom to support whatever gets decided on though, and that could take a while.
- emkoemko 5y agotry out darktable, its way more capable of a raw editor then those two and usually gets support for new export formats fairly fast.
- yakubin 5y agoIt has poor support for input formats though. E.g. it still doesn't support CR3. I prefer RawTherapee which supports CR3, doesn't look like a space station and still is miles ahead of Lightroom in terms of capability.
- Auracle 5y agoI actually meant to say Capture One and Photoshop. I know this is HN and we're gung-ho about open source but the last time I tried Darktable it didn't hold a candle to Capture One. To be fair that was a few years ago, but the color work put in to Capture One doesn't really have an equal IMO.
- emkoemko 5y agonot sure when you used it but you should try it again now... i have been on Lightroom and Capture One for years, tried DT last year and never bothered coming back to them, nothing to do with it being open source its just straight up a better raw editor, yes its hard to learn but once you figure it out you will see how much better it handles editing raw images, especially with the filmic module
- webmobdev 5y agoJPEG2000 is a good option for lossless compression. JPEG XL seems to offer better result and improvements now, but it isn't yet mainstream and has competition.
- vbphprubyjsgo 5y ago
- opan 5y agoWhatever happened to FLIF?
- dchest 5y agoGot integrated into JPEG XL.
- aaaaaaaaaaab 5y ago>For images, there's a finally successor to jpeg We've heard this a few times... JPEG2000, WebP, HEIF, AVIF. I bet JPEG XL will finally be it!
- yjftsjthsd-h 5y agoIn the specifics: WebP is pretty popular in my experience. In general: I expect that eventually something else will win, even if it takes a long time. There's too much room for improvement for the ecosystem to fossilize just yet.
- pmarreck 5y agoWhat's fascinating to me as a web dev is that (unless I'm mistaken), if I store all my images as JPEG-XL, I won't need to create thumbnails or resized images anymore... I think I can literally just hold onto the originals and just truncate the image binary stream at whatever resolution is required. I'm not sure how this would interact with "right-click to save image" though... what resolution would it be at that point?
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- LeoPanthera 5y agoIs this too late? iPhones are shooting in HEIF now, which means there's already millions of HEIF images in the world. Surely that is the de-facto next generation image standard.
- bumblebritches5 5y ago