3 ms·

>What is it that makes jpegxl valuable given that there’s already widespread adoption and support for av1, webp, etc? IMO the killer feature of JPEG XL is its

>What is it that makes jpegxl valuable given that there’s already widespread adoption and support for av1, webp, etc? IMO the killer feature of JPEG XL is its ability to losslessly transcode already existing JPEG images. See also these articles for a more detailed comparison: https://cloudinary.com/blog/how_jpeg_xl_compares_to_other_image_codecs https://cloudinary.com/blog/how_jpeg_xl_compares_to_other_im... https://cloudinary.com/blog/time_for_next_gen_codecs_to_dethrone_jpeg https://cloudinary.com/blog/time_for_next_gen_codecs_to_deth... (disclaimer: they were written by one of the authors of JPEG XL)

chungy 4y ago
> IMO the killer feature of JPEG XL is its ability to losslessly transcode already existing JPEG images. It's a nice transitory feature, but I think improved progressive decoding is even more worthwhile.
olliej 4y ago
Lossless transcoding is not a selling point IMO. It’s not relevant for new images (new devices aren’t producing jpegs), and I just don’t see people mass re-encoding their photo libraries. Features that actually matter to normal users are what is important. In that area progressive display seems like it would arguably be more useful, though I think it would still be dependent on what the image size is - websites now routinely require megs of JS to display anything at all, because net speeds are now fast enough that huge amounts of data are needed to get to a “noticeable” latency that would warrant display of incomplete data.