31 ms·
Nobody has brought it up yet, but JPEG XL seems to be close in potential and flexibility to OpenEXR. It seems more a competitor to something like that--for use
by SmasherEpilepti 20d ago
Nobody has brought it up yet, but JPEG XL seems to be close in potential and flexibility to OpenEXR. It seems more a competitor to something like that--for use in image processing and digital art pipelines--than something like JPEG, WEBP, or PNG.
That said, I have converted my personal JPEGs to JPEG XL, because you can losslessly convert back and forth between the two for smaller filesize in JPEG XL with no quality loss, so I get free storage savings and can get the byte-for-byte original JPEG back if I need it.
- doodlesdev 20d agoI knew about the lossless JPEG to JPEG XL compression story before, but had no idea that it was a two-way road. That's truly f* impressive. Boggles my mind even more the fact this format hasn't been adopted widely yet.
- magicalhippo 20d agoJPEG is a lossy frequency-space compression stage followed by a lossless Huffman coding stage. The second stage is quite generic as such, essentially compressing a stream of bits. So you can relatively easily replace the second stage with something better. And since it's lossless you can easily go back. Dropbox[1] and others have exploited this for reducing storage requirements, converting back on-demand so the client doesn't notice. https://github.com/dropbox/lepton https://github.com/dropbox/lepton
- jbverschoor 20d agobyte-for-byte identical file actually. Not just imagery. You can basically save 30% without loosing ANY bit of the original file
- jaffathecake 20d agoBecause what you save in terms of storage, you pay for in decode time, which is an important consideration on the web.
- doodlesdev 20d agoI guess my surprise is mostly that it hasn't been adopted elsewhere. For instance, it still boggles my mind I can't store my JPEG XL images on Google Photos nor take photos as JPEG XL images directly on my Samsung smartphone, but can use HEIC for some fruity reason.
- jaffathecake 20d agoThe DoS thing would certainly make me worry about handling these images on my server.
- Broiler9437 19d agoGoogle Photo teams wanted JXL too, but had to hold back due to Chromium not supporting them
- spider-mario 20d agoDo you? I just tried it locally, and decoding a 4.9MB, 6000×4000 JPEG with djpeg took about 400ms; decoding its losslessly-recompressed JXL (4.15MB) single-threaded with djxl took 300ms.
- jaffathecake 20d agoCool. You're getting different results to everyone else. Do you see the same on https://random-stuff.jakearchibald.com/apps/img-decode-bench/ https://random-stuff.jakearchibald.com/apps/img-decode-bench... (make sure you use a browser that supports JPEG XL)?
- spider-mario 20d agoWell, I said “with djxl”, and Chrome/Firefox use jxl-rs which happens to apparently be currently somewhat slower for that use-case (but libjxl being faster shows it doesn’t have to intrinsically be the case), and Safari uses libjxl but multithreaded (so it’s 800 ms for the JPEG and 137 ms for the JXL).