11 ms·
JPEG XL Test Page
- p_ing 8mo agoOrion, and presumably other Webkit-based browsers that are actually up-to-date, can also see the image. Hopefully my photo processor will accept JPEG XL in the near future!
- nine_k 8mo agoChromium 143 (the latest available in Void Linux, a rolling-release distro) still can't. The chrome://flags/#enable-jxl-image-format is not even found in the build :(
- RicoElectrico 8mo ago> Hopefully my photo processor will accept JPEG XL in the near future! Aren't print shops, machining shops, other small manufacturers etc. ones that always lag behind with emerging technologies?
- p_ing 8mo agoYes, because those systems cost gobs of money. You don't replace them just for the hot new thing.
- Dylan16807 8mo agoReplace? Why bring that up? The company that owns whatever system can and should be able to convert formats.
- p_ing 8mo agoThey request formats that their equipment handles. They're not in the business of converting a user's file type from one to another. That would be inconsistent from what the user sent. Here's who I order from, you can see the particulars of what they request. https://support.bayphoto.com/hc/en-us/articles/40266583579795-How-Should-I-Prepare-My-Files-File-Size-File-Preparation-Guidelines https://support.bayphoto.com/hc/en-us/articles/4026658357979...
- Dylan16807 8mo ago> They're not in the business of converting a user's file type from one to another. Their job is getting an image file into reality, not to be the absent owner of a big machine. > That would be inconsistent from what the user sent. If the machine accepts some type of normal image file, then they can losslessly convert other file formats to that type. There is nothing inconsistent about that.
- p_ing 8mo agoYou're free to make such assumptions.
- Dylan16807 8mo agoWhat are you calling an assumption? My first statement is an opinion/judgement, not an assumption. I'm confident my second statement is true. Note that any argument that says niche formats are a problem because color space might be ambiguous also applies to the formats they do accept.
- diroussel 8mo agoWho should accept responsibility when a conversion is not as expected? There are very few ‘lossless” conversions possible if you consider the loss of a data or metadata could affect the result. So if printer did accept a file that needed to be converted, and then during printing and converting they found conversion could lead to unexpected results should they cancel the print run? There is just too much to go wrong in printing already without these extra problems. The print industry has a long and storied history, and for whatever set of reasons, printers only accept very specific profiles of specific formats.
- Dylan16807 8mo ago> Who should accept responsibility when a conversion is not as expected? Who does it already? The system already takes files that could have unexpected results. It's likely that if they took some other reasonable file types while always pre-converting they could actually reduce the error rate.
- sanjit 8mo agoDesigners might also be hesitant to use an untested file format for print, too. If there’s a large amount of paper that’s been purchased for a job, I definitely wouldn’t want to be the one who’s responsible for using JPEG XL and – for whatever reason – something going wrong. Pixels are cheaper than paper or other physical media :)
- pkulak 8mo agoYup, Gnome Web loads it just fine! Man, it really is a great browser. I try to switch to it every 6 months, but then I remember that it doesn't support extensions at all. I could give up everything, but not 1Password. Nothing is worth copy/pasting credentials and losing passkeys entirely.
- encrypted_bird 8mo agoHave you tried KeePassXL with SyncThing? I've heard good things about that setup.
- Dylan16807 8mo agoFor what purpose? While it's a perfectly good password manager, when used with Gnome Web it also means copy/pasting passwords and losing passkeys. Doesn't it?
- encrypted_bird 8mo agoWhen I commented that, I did not realize Gnome Web was a web browser (I'd never heard of it frankly), let alone a non-Firefox-based browser. Lol.
- PlatoIsADisease 8mo agoYep, doesnt work on firefox or chrome.
- _grilled_cheese 8mo agoWorking fine on Firefox for me Firefox version 146.0.1 on Windows 11
- WithinReason 8mo agohttps://caniuse.com/jpegxl https://caniuse.com/jpegxl I have the flag enabled but it's still broken in FF, needs to be a nightly build to work
- nticompass 8mo agoWorks in Zen 1.17.15b (aka Firefox 146.0.1) on Linux.
- paularmstrong 8mo agoSame for me, Zen 1.17.15b on Mac
- Imustaskforhelp 8mo agoSame I am using Zen 1.17.15b on Mac too and it works for me too
- nor-and-or-not 8mo agoSame here, doesn't work, FF 148.0b5
- reef_sh 8mo agoOn Waterfox. Image displays fine.
- blell 8mo agoAlright, that image made be really miss Lenna as an example image.
- volemo 8mo agoI understand why people avoid it now; however, having not seen the uncropped version for a long time initially, I have only warm associations.
- bigbuppo 8mo agoLooks like the sort of person that would create a superior image file format.
- deleted 8mo ago[deleted]
- antonyh 8mo agoEpiphany (aka Gnome Web) on Linux shows this correctly, as expected for a Webkit-based browser.
- oldcoot 8mo agoLooks like it works in Brave
- mdasen 8mo agoWeird, doesn't work in Brave (macOS) for me. Did you enable a setting? Brave says it's up to date when I check.
- iberator 8mo agoDoesn't work for me on Brave on Android
- theandrewbailey 8mo agoDoesn't work in Brave. (Using v1.86.139)
- Imustaskforhelp 8mo agoOn zen. It works.
- deleted 8mo ago[deleted]
- dlcarrier 8mo agoAre there any up-to-date WebKit browsers for Android? The best I could find was Lightning, but it hasn't been updated in years. Edit: I found A Lightning fork called Fulguris. It didn't work with the JPEG XL test image, but I really like the features and customizability. It's now my default browser on Android.
- TingPing 8mo agoWPE can be built for Android, but it’s not a user facing browser.
- zamadatix 8mo agoThe closest thing I know of is Igalia has a project trying to port https://wpewebkit.org/ https://wpewebkit.org/ to Android https://github.com/Igalia/wpe-android https://github.com/Igalia/wpe-android and they have a minibrowser example apk in the releases of the current state (but I wouldn't call it a Chrome drop in replacement or anything at the moment - just the closest thing I know on Android).
- unglaublich 8mo agoI think JPEG XL's naming was unfortunate. People want to associate new image formats with leanness, lightness, efficiency.
- Almondsetat 8mo agoDo you have anything to back this up?
- snowram 8mo agoConsidering "jpeg" has become the shorthand for "digital picture", it would be a shame not to capitalise on it.
- flexagoon 8mo agoI feel like "jpeg" has generally become a shorthand for "low quality compressed digital picture"
- dgan 8mo ago"diJital PEGchure"
- dlcarrier 8mo agoIs it pronounced jay-peg or gee-peg?
- deleted 8mo ago[deleted]
- goda90 8mo agoHence the meme response "Needs more jpeg" https://old.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2ct3ax/eli5_what_does_the_phrase_needs_more_jpeg_mean/ https://old.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2ct3ax/e...
- 8mo ago
- ChrisArchitect 8mo agoRelated: Chromium Has Merged JpegXL https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46597927 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46597927
- sailfast 8mo agoWorks on FireFox Focus on mobile, FWIW. (Latest iOS)
- cdmckay 8mo agoThat’s because it uses the WebKit renderer built in to iOS
- adzm 8mo agoHonestly I was hoping for a page showing off more of jpeg xl features rather than just a single image
- wmwragg 8mo agoYou probably want the JPEG XL Info[1] site then. A nice site outlining what JPEG XL actually is. [1] https://jpegxl.info/ https://jpegxl.info/
- amarant 8mo agoWhile I get why, it bugs me that they have comparison images between jxl and other formats, yet it doesn't actually use jxl, as evidenced by all images displaying correctly on my chrome browser.
- kps 8mo agoIt uses jxl if the browser supports it, using <picture>¹. ¹ https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTML/Reference/Elements/picture https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTML/Reference/...
- jomohke 8mo agoThis is standard practice. They need to use current lossless formats to display examples to people who don't have the format yet. They are still showing accurate examples of compression artifacts. I'm not sure what else you'd expect them to do.
- uyzstvqs 8mo agoJPEG XL is also good, but why not use AVIF? It's widely supported by browsers, and rivals JPEG XL in being the best lossy image format.
- judah 8mo agoJake Archibald has an excellent post about progressive image rendering, including some metrics on JPEG XL compared to AVIF[0]. > "I was also surprised to see that, in Safari, JPEG XL takes 150% longer (as in 2.5x) to decode vs an equivalent AVIF. That's 17ms longer on my M4 Pro. Apple hardware tends to be high-end, but this could still be significant. This isn't related to progressive rendering; the decoder is just slow. There's some suggestion that the Apple implementation is running on a single core, so maybe there's room for improvement. > JPEG XL support in Safari actually comes from the underlying OS rather than the browser. My guess is that Apple is considering using JPEG XL for iPhone photo storage rather than HEIC, and JPEG XL's inclusion in the browser is a bit of an afterthought. I'm just guessing though. > The implementation that was in Chromium behind a flag did support progressive rendering to some degree, but it didn't render anything until ~60 kB (39% of the file). The rendering is similar to the initial JPEG rendering above, but takes much more image data to get there. This is a weakness in the decoder rather than the format itself. I'll dive into what JPEG XL is capable of shortly. > I also tested the performance of the old behind-a-flag Chromium JPEG XL decoder, and it's over 500% slower (6x) to decode than AVIF. The old behind-a-flag Firefox JPEG XL decoder is about as slow as the Safari decoder. It's not fair to judge the performance of experimental unreleased things, but I was kinda hoping one of these would suggest that the Safari implementation was an outlier. > I thought that "fast decoding" was one of the selling points of JPEG XL over AVIF, but now I'm not so sure. > We have a Rust implementation of JPEG XL underway in Firefox, but performance needs to get a lot better before we can land it." [0]: https://jakearchibald.com/2025/present-and-future-of-progressive-image-rendering/ https://jakearchibald.com/2025/present-and-future-of-progres...
- quentindanjou 8mo agoI am curious, isn't AVIF also taking advantage of the hardware decoding democratized by AV1?
- gary_0 8mo agoIf I download the image, Fedora KDE shows it properly in Dolphin and Gwenview.
- jordemort 8mo agoWorks in Waterfox (6.6.8)
- davidhyde 8mo agoWorks with Waterfox on macOS but curiously not Firefox. I wonder if their search deal with Google included keeping the image.jxl.enabled setting off.
- quaintdev 8mo agoWorks on Zen as well.
- F3nd0 8mo agoThat’s an interesting speculation, but I’m inclined to believe their official reasoning. (That being they just didn’t really care about the format and/or went with whatever Chrome said at first. A year or so later they changed their mind and said they wanted an implementation in a memory-safe language, which prompted the JXL team to work on it.)
- ajdude 8mo ago> this means only Safari will display the image, as far as I know. Works fine for me in Orion on both desktop and mobile ( https://orionbrowser.com https://orionbrowser.com ).
- seanclayton 8mo agoWhich makes sense as Orion uses the same engine as Safari.
- jbverschoor 8mo agoCannot see it with lockdown mode iOS
- rhdunn 8mo agoWorks in ladybird as well.
- Redster 8mo agoI can see the image just fine on Thorium!
- hotsalad 8mo agoI enabled image.jxl.enabled in LibreWolf and works. It doesn't work in Firefox Beta, though?
- Frenchgeek 8mo agoThere's a jpeg xl viewer extension available for firefox.
- samtheDamned 8mo agoA rare win for gnome web over firefox here
- numbers 8mo agoI'm seeing the image on zen which is a firefox fork but not on firefox itself :/ even with `image.jxl.enabled` I don't see it on firefox
- capitainenemo 8mo agoChecking the Firefox bugs on this, it seems they decided to replace the C++ libjxl with a rust version which is a WIP, to address security concerns with the implementation. All this started a few months ago. Maybe the zen fork is a bit older and still using the C++ one?
- capitainenemo 8mo ago... update. after reading the comments in the rust migration security bug, I saw they mentioned "only building in nightly for now" I grabbed the nightly firefox, flipped the jxl switch, and it does indeed render fine, so I guess the rust implementation is functioning, just not enabled in stable. ... also, I see no evidence that it was ever enabled in the stable builds, even for the C++ version, so I'm guessing Zen just turned it on. Which... is fine, but maybe not very cautious.
- awestroke 8mo agozen browser is pretty much vibe coded
- nar001 8mo agoDo you have any proof/more about this? I've never heard this claim and I'd like to know more
- awestroke 8mo ago1. Zen Browser had remote debugging enabled by default and disabled the security prompt for it. Extreme incompetence or malice? https://github.com/zen-browser/desktop/pull/927 https://github.com/zen-browser/desktop/pull/927 2. Social trackers are selectively allowed, unsigned extensions are enabled by default, and Enhanced Tracking Protection isn't fully implemented. There's just a theme of incompetence, trying to cover it up and just in general being clueless about security.
- cubefox 8mo agoAccording to CanIUse, no browser implementation currently supports progressive decoding [1]. This is unfortunate, since progressive decoding theoretically is a major advantage of JPEG XL over AVIF, which doesn't allow it in principle, even though ordinary JPEG allows it. But apparently even a default (non-progressive) JPEG XL allows some limited form of progressive decoding [2]. It's unclear whether browsers support it though. 1: https://caniuse.com/jpegxl https://caniuse.com/jpegxl 2: https://youtube.com/watch?v=inQxEBn831w https://youtube.com/watch?v=inQxEBn831w
- senfiaj 8mo agoStarting from v145 Chrome supports JXL. There is also an extension for this: https://chromewebstore.google.com/detail/jpeg-xl-viewer/bkhdlfmkaenamnlbpdfplekldlnghchp https://chromewebstore.google.com/detail/jpeg-xl-viewer/bkhd...
- pkulak 8mo agoAnd Firefox: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/jxl/ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/jxl/
- breve 8mo agoIt's a good use case for WebAssembly. For browsers that don't yet support JPEG XL natively the page could provide a wasm decoder. Like this demo page: https://bevara.github.io/Showcase/libjxl/ https://bevara.github.io/Showcase/libjxl/
- Santosh83 8mo agoWonderful. Allow an "unmonitored" extension from a random stranger on the Internet have access to "all data for all websites" just to support an image format for which Mozilla should have long built in native support...
- jiggawatts 8mo agoSupport is not a boolean. A proper test page should have HDR images, images testing if 10-bit gradients are posterised to 8-bit or displayed smoothly, etc... iOS for example can show a JPEG XL image, but can't forward it in iMessage to someone else.
- MrDrone 8mo agoThere have been a few other test pages posted in the comments with varying degrees of additional context. https://jpegxl.info/resources/jpeg-xl-test-page https://jpegxl.info/resources/jpeg-xl-test-page https://caniuse.com/jpegxl https://caniuse.com/jpegxl
- mort96 8mo agoHDR support is an anti-feature. Nobody want a part of a website to suddenly be 10x as bright as pure white.
- mattlondon 8mo agoPresumably the "January 2027" statement is a typo, ...or is that when it is slated to launch in safari?
- roywashere 8mo agoyeah, it's a typo :-)
- robertoandred 8mo agoSafari started supporting it over two years ago.
- gcr 8mo agoOne thing I like about JPEG-XL is that it supports all kinds of weird image formats. For example, I used to work with depth data a lot, which is best expressed as monochrome 16-bit floating point images. Previously, TIFF was the only format that supported this. Many shops would instead save depth images as UINT16 .PNG files, where the raw pixel intensity maps to the camera distance in mm. The problem with this is that pixels more than 65.535 meters away aren't representable. (Hot take: I personally think this is one reason why nobody studies depth estimation for outdoor scenes.) JPEG-XL supports more weird combinations here, e.g. storing greyscale float32 images (with alpha even! you can store sparse depth maps without needing a separate mask!) It's like, uniquely suited to these sorts of 3D scene understanding challenges and I really hope people adopt the format for more scientific applications.
- JBorrow 8mo agoThere is also FITS, but that is mainly for astronomical applications (and is in general an insane and terrible format). But it supports tons of types!
- somat 8mo agoOn the subject of tiff, why is it not used more? I mean, it is more or less really a container format right. Why are we not using it all over the place but with modern compression methods?
- jasomill 8mo agoIt is used quite a bit. As just one of innumerable examples, it's the basis for Adobe's DNG raw photo format and many proprietary raw formats used by camera manufacturers (Nikon NEF, Canon CRW and CR2, etc.). Speaking as an outside observer, the ISO Base Media File Format seems to have more mindshare for newer applications, presumably on account of its broader scope and cleaner design.
- GuB-42 8mo ago> One thing I like about JPEG-XL is that it supports all kinds of weird image formats. And it is probably the reason why browser vendors disliked it. Lots of complexity, it means a big library, which is high maintenance with a big attack surface. By comparison, webp is "free" if you have webm, as webp is essentially a single frame video.
- thisislife2 8mo agoAlso checkout - https://jpegxl.info/resources/jpeg-xl-test-page https://jpegxl.info/resources/jpeg-xl-test-page Works great on PaleMoon, one of the earliest browsers to support JPEG XL and "Global Privacy Control" ( https://globalprivacycontrol.org/ https://globalprivacycontrol.org/ ).
- ivanjermakov 8mo agohttps://caniuse.com/jpegxl https://caniuse.com/jpegxl Surprised to see it working on iOS 17.
- deleted 8mo ago[deleted]
- demetris 8mo agoI published some benchmarks recently: https://op111.net/posts/2025/10/png-and-modern-formats-lossless-image-compression/ https://op111.net/posts/2025/10/png-and-modern-formats-lossl... I compare PNG and the four modern formats, AVIF, HEIF, WebP, JPEG XL, on tasks/images that PNG was designed for. (Not on photographs or lossy compression.)
- enimodas 8mo agoWould be nice to also see decompression speed and maybe a photo as a bonus round.
- tasty_freeze 8mo agoIt seems like the natural categories are (1) photographs of real things, (2) line art, (3) illustrator images, (4) text content (eg, from a scanned document). Is there a reason you used only synthetic images, ie, nothing from group 1?
- demetris 8mo agoHey, tasty_freeze! The motivation behind the benchmarks was to understand what are the options today for optimizing the types of image we use PNG for, so I used the same set of images I had used previously in a comparison of PNG optimizers. The reason the set does not have photographs: PNG is not good at photographs. It was not designed for that type of image. Even so, the set could do with a bit more variety, so I want to add a few more images.
- gforce_de 8mo agocan you please: * add an correct HTML image alt information * compress your HTML and CSS with brotli (or gzip) thanks!
- thatgerhard 8mo agoIs the selectable text a safari thing or a JPEG XL thing?
- Alcor 8mo ago"Live Text" is a iOS/macOS feature. Works in Safari, camera, photos.app, etc…
- billynomates 8mo agoUnrelated but I read "it did not saw" and immediately thought, this person is Dutch. Then I saw the .nl domain. Not sure if this double-conjugation mistake is common in other ESL speakers but I hear it a lot living in the Netherlands.
- deleted 8mo ago[deleted]
- jiehong 8mo ago> more or less means only Safari will display the image Who is going to take the bait, and say that Safari isn't like IE?
- russiancupid 8mo ago[dead]
- Incipient 8mo agoVery good benchmark. Concise yet detailed. I like the selection of images. I wanted to see at least one actual camera photo however, for comparison.