4 ms·
Everything about JPEG XL sounds great, except that it takes about 34 times longer to encode an image compared to PNG. Edit: Apparently there's an experimental
by calibas 4y ago
Everything about JPEG XL sounds great, except that it takes about 34 times longer to encode an image compared to PNG.
Edit: Apparently there's an experimental faster version:
https://github.com/libjxl/libjxl/tree/main/experimental/fast_lossless https://github.com/libjxl/libjxl/tree/main/experimental/fast...
- edflsafoiewq 4y agoDepends, are you optimizing the PNG? Because cjxl is a hell of a lot faster for a much smaller file than zopflipng.
- klodolph 4y agozopflipng is a very aggressive form of optimization.
- Melatonic 4y agoIf it takes that much longer to encode then I am guessing it takes a lot longer to decode as well which I am going to guess makes it completely out for image sequences, film archiving, VFX work, high end photography, etc etc.
- TylerE 4y agoThat is usually not true. The time spent by high quality encoders is generally trying different settings to find optimals... decoding should be unaffected.
- edflsafoiewq 4y agoIt may take less time actually since it can be parallelized. PNG's big problem is it's serial.
- lifthrasiir 4y agoIn fact, Apple introduced its own extension chunk to PNG to enable parallel decoding, by splitting IDAT into two halves, put a zlib sync flush between them and record the offset to the second half [1]. This kind of split is bulit into JPEG XL. [1] https://www.hackerfactor.com/blog/index.php?/archives/895-Connecting-the-iDOTs.html#c4809 https://www.hackerfactor.com/blog/index.php?/archives/895-Co...