4 ms·

Is there any benefit to JPEG XL (over other formats) other than old JPEGs can be losslessly re-encoded?

• pikelet 3y ago
  Doesn't the linked comment answer that exact question?
• quikoa 3y ago
  Compared to JPEG: JPEG has been hitting its limits for an extended period: JPEG can only do 8-bit color depth, no HDR. JPEG can only do lossy, with no lossless support JPEG lacks good compression for graphics images JPEG cannot do alpha transparency JPEG cannot do animations JPEG does not support multiple layers JPEG compression efficiency is 30 years old and not as good JPEG comes with annoying compression artifacts we all love Banding, Noise, Blockiness, and more banding. For much more, here is a comprehensive overview: https://jpegxl.io/articles/faq/ https://jpegxl.io/articles/faq/
  • rcme 3y ago
    I didn't mean to compare JPEG XL to JPEG. I'm more curious if there is any advantage to JPEG XL over WebP or AV1.
    • jonsneyers 3y ago
      Here's a summary of the main points: https://jpegxl.info/why-jxl.html https://jpegxl.info/why-jxl.html Basically lossy WebP and AVIF are video codecs, which are designed for the kind of quality you want when you can only see an image for 40 milliseconds or less. For still images, higher fidelity is usually desired but the video codecs tend to struggle to even keep up with the old JPEG at those operating points. Similarly, video codecs are not designed for progressive decoding (rendering previews of a frame based on partial data), because that's a feature that doesn't make much sense for video. For still images on the web, progressive decoding is considered a desirable feature though to improve the user experience.
    • josefx 3y ago
      Going mostly by a quick check of the wikipedia descriptions JPEGXL seems to live up to the XL part: Larger image sizes, more bits per channel, more channels ... . WebP and AV1F seem to inherit size limitations from their corresponding codecs AV1F for example will start tiling with visible artifacts at 4/8k (depending on direction) to support larger images.
      • jdiff 3y ago
        With that Achille's heel in tiling and the slow and PoC-tier encode and decode performance, I'm amazed AVIF has gotten the adoption that it has. Add in that in lossless mode JPEG-XL is almost always smaller, sometimes by up to 4x, and I'm just not sure how it's even a competition. AVIF has so many compromises baked in that didn't need to be made.
    • koito17 3y ago
      > if there is any advantage to JPEG XL over WebP or [AVIF] Of course there is. Better compression than WebP, and unlike AVIF, it supports progressive decoding, which is super important for users on a slow network. Although AVIF can sometimes produce 50% smaller size files than WebP, many site owners will opt for WebP anyway because it has progressive image decoding, so their website will display something while an image is nothing rather than nothing until the whole image is loaded. With that said, JXL achieves comparable compression to AVIF, and it suffers way less from generation loss, too.
• sebzim4500 3y ago
  JPEG XL is significantly more efficient at both lossy and lossless compression than any of the alternatives.
• aidenn0 3y ago
  - In my own testing JPEG XL demolishes AVIF and WebP in terms of bitrate at my desired quality, particularly for artifacts around sharp edges. - This can (in theory) be solved in other formats by improving the encoder, but the current jxl encoder is pretty much "set it and forget it" in terms of getting a good quality; other encoders are far more variable (e.g. I would use a different quality setting for B&W vs color and line-art vs photo). - In others' testing (I don't use this feature) JXL has better lossless compression.
• donatzsky 3y ago
  Many. Read the link. It's all explained.