You missed the "almost". The vast majority of use-cases and users barely care about encoding performance. Your use is in the tiny minority. That isn't to say t

You missed the "almost". The vast majority of use-cases and users barely care about encoding performance. Your use is in the tiny minority. That isn't to say that you don't have a use-case, just that because of how rarely encoding speed matters, it truly is "almost irrelevant" for 99.99% of users 99.99% of the time. -------------- It definitely would be nice if JPEG-XL also had good encoding performance, though. There's an experimental fast encoder in development currently[1], although before that lands, it would be nice if your scanning tool supported a workflow somewhat like "scan in parallel with image encoding, present encoded images to user, and allow them to asynchronously go back and re-scan/encode/review pages that came out badly". [1] https://github.com/libjxl/libjxl/tree/main/experimental/fast_lossless https://github.com/libjxl/libjxl/tree/main/experimental/fast...