> JPEG-XL seemed like the next logical step until Google took their toys and killed it despite already having the support in Chrome, which pretty much makes it

> JPEG-XL seemed like the next logical step until Google took their toys and killed it despite already having the support in Chrome, which pretty much makes it dead in the water (don't you just love monopolies making decisions for you?) I've done several tests where I lowered the quality settings (and thus, the resulting file size) of JPEG-XL and AVIF encoders over a variety of images. In almost every image, JPEG-XL subjective quality fell faster than AVIF, which seemed mostly OK for web use at similar file sizes. Due to that last fact, I concede that Chrome's choice to drop JPEG-XL support is correct. If things change (JPEG-XL becomes more efficient at low file sizes, gains Chrome support), I have lossless PNG originals to re-encode from.