4 ms·

I did some reading recently, for a benchmark I was setting up, to try and understand what the situation is. It seems things have started changing in the last ye

I did some reading recently, for a benchmark I was setting up, to try and understand what the situation is. It seems things have started changing in the last year or so. Some links from my notes: https://www.phoronix.com/news/Mozilla-Interest-JPEG-XL-Rust https://www.phoronix.com/news/Mozilla-Interest-JPEG-XL-Rust https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41443336 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41443336 (discussion of the same GitHub comment as in the Phoronix site) https://github.com/tirr-c/jxl-oxide https://github.com/tirr-c/jxl-oxide https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1986393 https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1986393 (land initial jpegxl rust code pref disabled) In case anyone is curious, here is the benchmark I did my reading for: https://op111.net/posts/2025/10/png-and-modern-formats-lossless-image-compression/ https://op111.net/posts/2025/10/png-and-modern-formats-lossl...

idoubtit 1y ago
No, the situation about image compression has not changed. The Grand Poster you were replying to was writing about typical web usage, that is "medium-to-heavily compressed images", while your benchmark is about lossless compression. BTW, I don't see how Mozilla's interest in a jpegxl _decoder_ (your first link) has anything to do with the performance of jpegxl encoders compared to avif's encoders. In case you're really interested in the former, Firefox now has more than intentions, but it's still not at production level: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1986393 https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1986393
- demetris 1y ago
  No. demetris’ benchmark of lossless image compression is not a sign that the situation may be changing. :-D That was just the context for some reading I did to understand where we are now. > BTW, I don't see how Mozilla's interest in a jpegxl _decoder_ (your first link) has anything to do with the performance of jpegxl encoders compared to avif's encoders. In case you're really interested in the former, Firefox now has more than intentions, but it's still not at production level: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1986393 https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1986393 That is one of the links I shared in my comment (along with the bug title in parenthesis). :-)

idoubtit 1y ago

No, the situation about image compression has not changed. The Grand Poster you were replying to was writing about typical web usage, that is "medium-to-heavily compressed images", while your benchmark is about lossless compression. BTW, I don't see how Mozilla's interest in a jpegxl _decoder_ (your first link) has anything to do with the performance of jpegxl encoders compared to avif's encoders. In case you're really interested in the former, Firefox now has more than intentions, but it's still not at production level: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1986393 https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1986393

demetris 1y ago
No. demetris’ benchmark of lossless image compression is not a sign that the situation may be changing. :-D That was just the context for some reading I did to understand where we are now. > BTW, I don't see how Mozilla's interest in a jpegxl _decoder_ (your first link) has anything to do with the performance of jpegxl encoders compared to avif's encoders. In case you're really interested in the former, Firefox now has more than intentions, but it's still not at production level: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1986393 https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1986393 That is one of the links I shared in my comment (along with the bug title in parenthesis). :-)