4 ms·
I think it would make more sense to support the existing implementation than to start yet another one. As for why jxl-oxide can't be used yet — it just isn't m
by pornel 2y ago
I think it would make more sense to support the existing implementation than to start yet another one.
As for why jxl-oxide can't be used yet — it just isn't mature enough yet. They're still finding unimplemented or incompatible features, and have some unoptimized code.
JPEG XL is big and complex – it is designed to have every feature of every competing codec (from vector graphics to video), and beat them all on compression in every case, so it's a half a dozen of different codecs in a trench coat.
- noobermin 2y agoWhy start from zero then if jpeg xl is big and complex?
- JyrkiAlakuijala 2y agoI believe that analysis is unfair or imprecise libjxl decoder is 3-5x smaller in binary and 10x smaller in specification text size than an avif decoder
- rurban 2y agoBut it has an insane API. I wanted to support jxl encoding, but eventually gave up. Too complicated for average users
- JyrkiAlakuijala 2y agoCould it be improved by having a wrapper for simple uses?