4 ms·

JXL is one of the technologies that I hope we can fully transition over, i.e. in a couple of years nobody (even non-tech-savvy people) are sharing or copying or

JXL is one of the technologies that I hope we can fully transition over, i.e. in a couple of years nobody (even non-tech-savvy people) are sharing or copying or saving JPEGs.

wao0uuno 1mo ago
What's wrong with JPEG and why is not using it beneficial in any way?
- mkl 1mo ago
  I think JPEGs will be around forever, but JPEG XL can losslessly recompress JPEGs to be smaller, so that would be one way.
- rdsubhas 1mo ago
  Depth. Wider color gamut, HDR, the things our devices now capture and render. And it supports animation by default, so the "motion photos" will be natively shareable. Also, recompressing JPEG as JPEG-XL gives a free boost, so simply, why not. If you're sharing something in social media or anywhere, there is no reason to not convert and have the other person receive JPEG-XL by default. My point is less about the size and so on. But what the visual (bit depth and color gamut) and functional leap of JPEG-XL. It's a format that combines and replaces the many different use cases that different formats are doing now.
  - wao0uuno 1mo ago
    Weird that your comment got "downvoted". It's perfectly reasonable and pretty informative with the exception of converting old JPEGs to new format automatically. Seems like a huge waste of resources to shed a few KBs off an already ultra compressed file. I wonder if mirrorless cameras will get native support for this format.
asddubs 1mo ago
two thirds of graphics software doesn't even support webp yet. it doesn't look good
- rdsubhas 1mo ago
  There is a reason for it. WebP was designed for a narrow-use: optimize for web. It doesn't support HDR, limited color gamut. e.g. All the devices that you use today are taking and viewing HDR pictures, or Print workflows, webp has no role to play in it. This is not enough for companies to invest heavily in. JXL is broad use/ universal. High bit depth, wide gamut, different color spaces — from HDR displays, to web, to print to medical photography and so on. It would help the device that your viewing this on, right now. It's not like WebP where the only focus is to reduce file size. The fact that it does this also, and also recompresses jpegs lossless, is just an addon, not a singular reason. If you get a chance, ignore all the file size noise, and look at JXL for what it is and how it's being adopted by different industries.
  - asddubs 1mo ago
    I don't even really expect them to save to webp necessarily, but they should at least be able to open it. No matter what tool you use, opening an image you copied from the internet has got to be a common use case.

JXL is one of the technologies that I hope we can fully transition over, i.e. in a couple of years nobody (even non-tech-savvy people) are sharing or copying or saving JPEGs.

wao0uuno 1mo ago

What's wrong with JPEG and why is not using it beneficial in any way?

mkl 1mo ago
I think JPEGs will be around forever, but JPEG XL can losslessly recompress JPEGs to be smaller, so that would be one way.
rdsubhas 1mo ago
Depth. Wider color gamut, HDR, the things our devices now capture and render. And it supports animation by default, so the "motion photos" will be natively shareable. Also, recompressing JPEG as JPEG-XL gives a free boost, so simply, why not. If you're sharing something in social media or anywhere, there is no reason to not convert and have the other person receive JPEG-XL by default. My point is less about the size and so on. But what the visual (bit depth and color gamut) and functional leap of JPEG-XL. It's a format that combines and replaces the many different use cases that different formats are doing now.
- wao0uuno 1mo ago
  Weird that your comment got "downvoted". It's perfectly reasonable and pretty informative with the exception of converting old JPEGs to new format automatically. Seems like a huge waste of resources to shed a few KBs off an already ultra compressed file. I wonder if mirrorless cameras will get native support for this format.

asddubs 1mo ago

two thirds of graphics software doesn't even support webp yet. it doesn't look good

rdsubhas 1mo ago
There is a reason for it. WebP was designed for a narrow-use: optimize for web. It doesn't support HDR, limited color gamut. e.g. All the devices that you use today are taking and viewing HDR pictures, or Print workflows, webp has no role to play in it. This is not enough for companies to invest heavily in. JXL is broad use/ universal. High bit depth, wide gamut, different color spaces — from HDR displays, to web, to print to medical photography and so on. It would help the device that your viewing this on, right now. It's not like WebP where the only focus is to reduce file size. The fact that it does this also, and also recompresses jpegs lossless, is just an addon, not a singular reason. If you get a chance, ignore all the file size noise, and look at JXL for what it is and how it's being adopted by different industries.
- asddubs 1mo ago
  I don't even really expect them to save to webp necessarily, but they should at least be able to open it. No matter what tool you use, opening an image you copied from the internet has got to be a common use case.