4 ms·

One does wonder how much of JXL's awesomeness is the encoder vs. the format. Its ability to make high quality, compact images just with "-d 1.0" is uncanny. W

One does wonder how much of JXL's awesomeness is the encoder vs. the format. Its ability to make high quality, compact images just with "-d 1.0" is uncanny. With other codecs, I had to pass different quality settings depending on the image type to get similar results.

kasabali 3y ago
That's a very good point. At this rate of development I wouldn't be surprised if libjxl becomes x264 of image encoders. On the other hand, libvpx has always been a mediocre encoder which I think might be the reason for disappointing performance (I mean in general, not just speed) of vp8/vp9 formats, which inevitably also affected performance of lossy WebP. Dark Shikari even did a comparison of still image performances of x264 vs vp8 [0]. [0] https://web.archive.org/web/20150419071902/http://x264dev.multimedia.cx/archives/541 https://web.archive.org/web/20150419071902/http://x264dev.mu...
- JyrkiAlakuijala 3y ago
  While WebP lossy still has image quality issues it has improved a lot over the years. One should not consider a comparison done with 2010-2015 implementations indicative of quality performance today.
  - kasabali 3y ago
    I'm sure it's better now than 13 years ago, but the conclusion I got from looking at very recent published benchmark results is that lossy webp is still only slightly better than mozjpeg at low bitrates and still has worse max. PQ ceiling compared to JPEG, which in my opinion makes it not worth using over plain old JPEG even in web settings.
    - JyrkiAlakuijala 3y ago
      That matches my observations. I believe that WebP lossy does not add value when Jpegli is an option and is having hard time to compete even with MozJPEG.
edflsafoiewq 3y ago
They've also made a JPEG encoder, cjpegli, with the same "-d 1.0" interface.
- dingdingdang 3y ago
  Excellent run-through of jpegli encoder here: https://giannirosato.com/blog/post/jpegli/ https://giannirosato.com/blog/post/jpegli/ - wish I could find a pre-compiled terminal utility for cjpegli!
  - lonjil 3y ago
    I have heard that it will see a proper standalone release at some point this year, but I don't know more than that.
  - kasabali 3y ago
    They're available at https://github.com/libjxl/libjxl/releases/ https://github.com/libjxl/libjxl/releases/ for linux and windows.
    - dingdingdang 3y ago
      Dear lord.. despite browsing and using github on a daily basis I still miss releases section sometimes! Before I saw your reply I checked the Scoop repos and sure enough, on Windows this will get you latest cjpegli version installed and added to path in one go: scoop install main/libjxl Note.. now that I tried it: that is really next level for an old format..!
  - botanical 3y ago
    It's in the static github release files here: https://github.com/libjxl/libjxl/releases/tag/v0.10.1 https://github.com/libjxl/libjxl/releases/tag/v0.10.1
  - aidenn0 3y ago
    It's in the unstable channel of nixpkgs.
JyrkiAlakuijala 3y ago
Pik was designed initially without quality options only to do the best there is to achieve distance 1.0. We kept a lot of focus on visually lossless and I didn't want to add format features which would add complexity but not help at high quality settings. In addition to modeling features, the context modeling and efficiency of entropy coding is critical at high quality. I consider AVIFs entropy coding ill-suited for high quality or lossless photography.

kasabali 3y ago

That's a very good point. At this rate of development I wouldn't be surprised if libjxl becomes x264 of image encoders. On the other hand, libvpx has always been a mediocre encoder which I think might be the reason for disappointing performance (I mean in general, not just speed) of vp8/vp9 formats, which inevitably also affected performance of lossy WebP. Dark Shikari even did a comparison of still image performances of x264 vs vp8 [0]. [0] https://web.archive.org/web/20150419071902/http://x264dev.multimedia.cx/archives/541 https://web.archive.org/web/20150419071902/http://x264dev.mu...

JyrkiAlakuijala 3y ago
While WebP lossy still has image quality issues it has improved a lot over the years. One should not consider a comparison done with 2010-2015 implementations indicative of quality performance today.
- kasabali 3y ago
  I'm sure it's better now than 13 years ago, but the conclusion I got from looking at very recent published benchmark results is that lossy webp is still only slightly better than mozjpeg at low bitrates and still has worse max. PQ ceiling compared to JPEG, which in my opinion makes it not worth using over plain old JPEG even in web settings.
  - JyrkiAlakuijala 3y ago
    That matches my observations. I believe that WebP lossy does not add value when Jpegli is an option and is having hard time to compete even with MozJPEG.

edflsafoiewq 3y ago

They've also made a JPEG encoder, cjpegli, with the same "-d 1.0" interface.

dingdingdang 3y ago
Excellent run-through of jpegli encoder here: https://giannirosato.com/blog/post/jpegli/ https://giannirosato.com/blog/post/jpegli/ - wish I could find a pre-compiled terminal utility for cjpegli!
- lonjil 3y ago
  I have heard that it will see a proper standalone release at some point this year, but I don't know more than that.
- kasabali 3y ago
  They're available at https://github.com/libjxl/libjxl/releases/ https://github.com/libjxl/libjxl/releases/ for linux and windows.
  - dingdingdang 3y ago
    Dear lord.. despite browsing and using github on a daily basis I still miss releases section sometimes! Before I saw your reply I checked the Scoop repos and sure enough, on Windows this will get you latest cjpegli version installed and added to path in one go: scoop install main/libjxl Note.. now that I tried it: that is really next level for an old format..!
- botanical 3y ago
  It's in the static github release files here: https://github.com/libjxl/libjxl/releases/tag/v0.10.1 https://github.com/libjxl/libjxl/releases/tag/v0.10.1
- aidenn0 3y ago
  It's in the unstable channel of nixpkgs.

JyrkiAlakuijala 3y ago

Pik was designed initially without quality options only to do the best there is to achieve distance 1.0. We kept a lot of focus on visually lossless and I didn't want to add format features which would add complexity but not help at high quality settings. In addition to modeling features, the context modeling and efficiency of entropy coding is critical at high quality. I consider AVIFs entropy coding ill-suited for high quality or lossless photography.