5 ms·

It’s actually time to switch to JPEG XL. Just one format, does lossless and lossy (and usually smaller than PNG when lossless, always smaller than JPEG when los

It’s actually time to switch to JPEG XL. Just one format, does lossless and lossy (and usually smaller than PNG when lossless, always smaller than JPEG when lossy)

dontbenebby 4y ago
Maybe. Is it patent encumbered?
- Beltalowda 4y ago
  https://jpegxl.io/articles/faq/#isjpegxlroyalty-free https://jpegxl.io/articles/faq/#isjpegxlroyalty-free? No.
  - dontbenebby 4y ago
    If it's also efficient, sounds interesting. Thanks for the cite! I'll bookmark it.
  - jeroenhd 4y ago
    Their website doesn't list a date so I have no idea how up to date this is, but the situation doesn't seem all that clear to me: https://jpegxl.io/articles/rans/ https://jpegxl.io/articles/rans/ If Microsoft's patent goes through and ends up being enforceable then their open-source release doesn't mean squat; their license may say it's royalty free and grants free usage of any patents, but the patents wouldn't be theirs to grant the usage of. Of course you can ignore this for software distributed in jurisdictions without silly stuff like software patent enforcement, but if you distribute the software to the USA then you might run into trouble.
theandrewbailey 4y ago
Browsers don't support it out of the box (yet), so probably not time to switch. Try AVIF instead. It has similar efficiency and feature set and is better supported. https://caniuse.com/jpegxl https://caniuse.com/jpegxl https://caniuse.com/avif https://caniuse.com/avif
- brycewray 4y ago
  AVIF will be a good choice in time, but right now it takes a lot of horsepower (read: battery juice) for some devices to use it. Not sure how/when that'll get resolved. From “The ROI of Adopting AVIF for Websites” on the Cloudinary Blog, 2021-11-29[0]: > . . . since AVIF decoding consumes a lot of CPU and battery, mobile devices are taking a while to jump on the AVIF bandwagon. [0]: https://cloudinary.com/blog/the_roi_of_adopting_avif_for_websites https://cloudinary.com/blog/the_roi_of_adopting_avif_for_web...
- dontbenebby 4y ago
  >Browsers don't support it out of the box (yet), so probably not time to switch. Ok, so do we skip even trying to use more well tested stuff like APNG to use this? Or just accept the moment is as gone as the blink tag? (I'm only being half joking -- I'm not a data visualization expert but I learned digital photography when you'd shoot onto a floppy jammed into the camera, so while I don't know algos well, I've also seen scores of security vulnerabilities stem from browser cruft. Classic example being that prior to FTP support being removed from firefox, you could do things like say go to trusteddomain.nameofschool.edu@badsitethatistotallyfullofputinsmalware.ru and very easily infect any sort of kiosk running Firefox, Firebird, or in one especially hilarious case... Internet Explorer. I'm not even joking... my target was still using Internet Explorer, on a kiosk, years after the switch to Edge. (Luckily all I did was redirect to a search engine to find an ISBN number. I could have done much worse.)
aidenn0 4y ago
Can I embed a JPEG XL in a PDF yet? That's what keeps me on jp2k
xeeeeeeeeeeenu 4y ago
Unfortunately, it seems that despite being inferior to JPEG XL, AVIF will become the next main image format. JXL still has zero browser support (out of the box; Firefox and Chromium have it hidden behind a feature flag) and it doesn't seem that the browser developers are interested in changing that.
- F-app 4y ago
  The most important thing is Apple. The closed-door company has taken a long time to make its devices accessible to the WebP, and even now it is incomplete. If avif is not displayed in Safari, the Apple's Internet Explorer, it is no different from jxl.
yyyk 4y ago
The 'one format' thing is actually somewhat of a problem. Users may want to be sure they're staying loseless when doing an operation and with most modern formats one can't ensure that. Yes, lossy PNG can be done, but in such a way that there's no way to apply that transformation without being very aware - but there's no similar standard to ensure this with modern formats, this is left to the mercy of software.

It’s actually time to switch to JPEG XL. Just one format, does lossless and lossy (and usually smaller than PNG when lossless, always smaller than JPEG when lossy)

dontbenebby 4y ago

Maybe. Is it patent encumbered?

Beltalowda 4y ago
https://jpegxl.io/articles/faq/#isjpegxlroyalty-free https://jpegxl.io/articles/faq/#isjpegxlroyalty-free? No.
- dontbenebby 4y ago
  If it's also efficient, sounds interesting. Thanks for the cite! I'll bookmark it.
- jeroenhd 4y ago
  Their website doesn't list a date so I have no idea how up to date this is, but the situation doesn't seem all that clear to me: https://jpegxl.io/articles/rans/ https://jpegxl.io/articles/rans/ If Microsoft's patent goes through and ends up being enforceable then their open-source release doesn't mean squat; their license may say it's royalty free and grants free usage of any patents, but the patents wouldn't be theirs to grant the usage of. Of course you can ignore this for software distributed in jurisdictions without silly stuff like software patent enforcement, but if you distribute the software to the USA then you might run into trouble.

theandrewbailey 4y ago

Browsers don't support it out of the box (yet), so probably not time to switch. Try AVIF instead. It has similar efficiency and feature set and is better supported. https://caniuse.com/jpegxl https://caniuse.com/jpegxl https://caniuse.com/avif https://caniuse.com/avif

brycewray 4y ago
AVIF will be a good choice in time, but right now it takes a lot of horsepower (read: battery juice) for some devices to use it. Not sure how/when that'll get resolved. From “The ROI of Adopting AVIF for Websites” on the Cloudinary Blog, 2021-11-29[0]: > . . . since AVIF decoding consumes a lot of CPU and battery, mobile devices are taking a while to jump on the AVIF bandwagon. [0]: https://cloudinary.com/blog/the_roi_of_adopting_avif_for_websites https://cloudinary.com/blog/the_roi_of_adopting_avif_for_web...
dontbenebby 4y ago
>Browsers don't support it out of the box (yet), so probably not time to switch. Ok, so do we skip even trying to use more well tested stuff like APNG to use this? Or just accept the moment is as gone as the blink tag? (I'm only being half joking -- I'm not a data visualization expert but I learned digital photography when you'd shoot onto a floppy jammed into the camera, so while I don't know algos well, I've also seen scores of security vulnerabilities stem from browser cruft. Classic example being that prior to FTP support being removed from firefox, you could do things like say go to trusteddomain.nameofschool.edu@badsitethatistotallyfullofputinsmalware.ru and very easily infect any sort of kiosk running Firefox, Firebird, or in one especially hilarious case... Internet Explorer. I'm not even joking... my target was still using Internet Explorer, on a kiosk, years after the switch to Edge. (Luckily all I did was redirect to a search engine to find an ISBN number. I could have done much worse.)

aidenn0 4y ago

Can I embed a JPEG XL in a PDF yet? That's what keeps me on jp2k

xeeeeeeeeeeenu 4y ago

Unfortunately, it seems that despite being inferior to JPEG XL, AVIF will become the next main image format. JXL still has zero browser support (out of the box; Firefox and Chromium have it hidden behind a feature flag) and it doesn't seem that the browser developers are interested in changing that.

F-app 4y ago
The most important thing is Apple. The closed-door company has taken a long time to make its devices accessible to the WebP, and even now it is incomplete. If avif is not displayed in Safari, the Apple's Internet Explorer, it is no different from jxl.

yyyk 4y ago

The 'one format' thing is actually somewhat of a problem. Users may want to be sure they're staying loseless when doing an operation and with most modern formats one can't ensure that. Yes, lossy PNG can be done, but in such a way that there's no way to apply that transformation without being very aware - but there's no similar standard to ensure this with modern formats, this is left to the mercy of software.