5 ms·

The clear winner here is JPEG XL, which is fully supported in iOS 17 and will have a billion+ capable clients by end of year. JPEG XL has HDR, is the best code

The clear winner here is JPEG XL, which is fully supported in iOS 17 and will have a billion+ capable clients by end of year. JPEG XL has HDR, is the best codec for photographic type content in all but extremely low file size, is the best codec for cartoon/chart style graphics, has a container that is enormously flexible (want to store a channel for depth or for object detection? You can do it).

yboris 3y ago
Confirming that JPEG XL is a winner. Here's one of the main developers of the format, Jon Sneyers, writing 3 days ago: JPEG XL: How It Started, How It’s Going https://cloudinary.com/blog/jpeg-xl-how-it-started-how-its-going https://cloudinary.com/blog/jpeg-xl-how-it-started-how-its-g...
cubefox 3y ago
While JPEG XL is great in most aspects, in terms of file size AVIF is substantially smaller at medium image quality. AVIF has a lot of problems though, e.g. no progressive image loading or limited resolution. The situation is really frustrating, since there is only a once-in-multiple-decades chance to replace JPEG and PNG, and this chance should better be met with a format that is great at everything. Because if it succeeds, we will be stuck with its shortcomings for a long time, just as we were stuck with JPEG for decades.
- srgpqt 3y ago
  > a format that is great at everything I too want a magical flying unicorn, and maybe we can make one in the next 40 years, but in the mean time I will happily accept to be stuck with a magical jpegxl unicorn that can’t fly.
  - cubefox 3y ago
    You get your unicorn only if it can fly. Otherwise the Chrome team gives you a flying donkey. A non-flying unicorn happens to be not on the table.
- LoganDark 3y ago
  i think png will never be replaced because you will always be able to tell that a png file is lossless, but jpeg is almost always used as a lossy format, and you will never be able to tell at a glance whether someone cared enough to make it lossless for a particular file (note: losslessly preserving jpeg artifacts is still lossless if those artifacts were already present in the source material)
  - cubefox 3y ago
    That's a good point, though image viewers could add that information to a "more info" dialogue.
    - LoganDark 3y ago
      i don't look at dialogs before i download, save, or pick a file from a directory listing
      - eviks 3y ago
        But you look at your image viewer that could have the lossless indicator? (and there is an issue open to add this indicator to the jxl files) https://github.com/libjxl/libjxl/issues/432 https://github.com/libjxl/libjxl/issues/432
        LoganDark 3y ago
        i doubt windows explorer would add an indicator over every thumbnail in a directory listing, and that is a very specific use case (you having a bunch of photos already on your computer and wanting to know if they are lossless), it's incredibly contrived and useless in the real world
        eviks 3y ago
        Why are you calling your use case contrived and useless? Also, why is windows explorer relevant when there are much better file/image "listers" out there?
altairprime 3y ago
The clear decade-plus-of-backwards-compatibility-in-globally-deployed-software winner is XYB JPEG, a category in which neither XL not AVIF are valid comparisons at all. This in no way contradicts your points about the forward opportunities of XL. For anyone that seeks the best backwards-compatibility for display use, there’s now XYB as well.

yboris 3y ago

Confirming that JPEG XL is a winner. Here's one of the main developers of the format, Jon Sneyers, writing 3 days ago: JPEG XL: How It Started, How It’s Going https://cloudinary.com/blog/jpeg-xl-how-it-started-how-its-going https://cloudinary.com/blog/jpeg-xl-how-it-started-how-its-g...

cubefox 3y ago

While JPEG XL is great in most aspects, in terms of file size AVIF is substantially smaller at medium image quality. AVIF has a lot of problems though, e.g. no progressive image loading or limited resolution. The situation is really frustrating, since there is only a once-in-multiple-decades chance to replace JPEG and PNG, and this chance should better be met with a format that is great at everything. Because if it succeeds, we will be stuck with its shortcomings for a long time, just as we were stuck with JPEG for decades.

srgpqt 3y ago
> a format that is great at everything I too want a magical flying unicorn, and maybe we can make one in the next 40 years, but in the mean time I will happily accept to be stuck with a magical jpegxl unicorn that can’t fly.
- cubefox 3y ago
  You get your unicorn only if it can fly. Otherwise the Chrome team gives you a flying donkey. A non-flying unicorn happens to be not on the table.
LoganDark 3y ago
i think png will never be replaced because you will always be able to tell that a png file is lossless, but jpeg is almost always used as a lossy format, and you will never be able to tell at a glance whether someone cared enough to make it lossless for a particular file (note: losslessly preserving jpeg artifacts is still lossless if those artifacts were already present in the source material)
- cubefox 3y ago
  That's a good point, though image viewers could add that information to a "more info" dialogue.
  - LoganDark 3y ago
    i don't look at dialogs before i download, save, or pick a file from a directory listing
    - eviks 3y ago
      But you look at your image viewer that could have the lossless indicator? (and there is an issue open to add this indicator to the jxl files) https://github.com/libjxl/libjxl/issues/432 https://github.com/libjxl/libjxl/issues/432
      - LoganDark 3y ago
        i doubt windows explorer would add an indicator over every thumbnail in a directory listing, and that is a very specific use case (you having a bunch of photos already on your computer and wanting to know if they are lossless), it's incredibly contrived and useless in the real world
        eviks 3y ago
        Why are you calling your use case contrived and useless? Also, why is windows explorer relevant when there are much better file/image "listers" out there?

altairprime 3y ago

The clear decade-plus-of-backwards-compatibility-in-globally-deployed-software winner is XYB JPEG, a category in which neither XL not AVIF are valid comparisons at all. This in no way contradicts your points about the forward opportunities of XL. For anyone that seeks the best backwards-compatibility for display use, there’s now XYB as well.