6 ms·

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

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?
        LoganDark 3y ago
        it's useless as a solution to the actual problem because usually the filename and an image preview are the only pieces of information you get about an image no matter where you are and saying "well just display the quality level" is incredibly ignorant of the literal entire world not doing this uploaded a file to discord? preview and filename found an image on google? preview and filename opening a file on your computer? i fail to understand how windows explorer is not relevant when you can't just set the image viewer for save/open dialogs on windows, that's just not a thing that's possible to do and even then, do i want to know the quality level of an image only after saving it manually? also no tl;dr when you see a .jxl file you have no idea how compressed it is, but when you see .png you know that it's always lossless. it's not hard to understand how png will stay relevant for at least this reason
- eviks 3y ago
  But you can't tell that png is lossless as you don't know how much loss there was before png

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?
        LoganDark 3y ago
        it's useless as a solution to the actual problem because usually the filename and an image preview are the only pieces of information you get about an image no matter where you are and saying "well just display the quality level" is incredibly ignorant of the literal entire world not doing this uploaded a file to discord? preview and filename found an image on google? preview and filename opening a file on your computer? i fail to understand how windows explorer is not relevant when you can't just set the image viewer for save/open dialogs on windows, that's just not a thing that's possible to do and even then, do i want to know the quality level of an image only after saving it manually? also no tl;dr when you see a .jxl file you have no idea how compressed it is, but when you see .png you know that it's always lossless. it's not hard to understand how png will stay relevant for at least this reason
eviks 3y ago
But you can't tell that png is lossless as you don't know how much loss there was before png