3 ms·

Professional web developers want to create a great experience for their users, so they go beyond simply serving whatever comes off a digital camera. As the art

Professional web developers want to create a great experience for their users, so they go beyond simply serving whatever comes off a digital camera. As the article identifies, JPEG XL is kinda bad at certain types of images, whereas AVIF does well across the board, so if you feel compelled to pick a single format to use, AVIF would be a better choice, but it's definitely worth optimising your web images for the web. Also, JPEG XL is two codecs bundled into one, VarDCT and Modular. So, even if you're picking JPEG XL as "the one codec", you're actually picking two, and you need to choose between them at encode time.

IshKebab 12d ago
> Also, JPEG XL is two codecs bundled into one, That's an internal detail that doesn't really matter to anyone outside library implementors, or when you're choosing encode settings though. It's the same in Opus. Technically it's two formats, but as long as they're one entity that's either supported or not supported, everything is good. AVIF does seem to have at least a couple of downsides compared to JXL like max 12-bit depth, no JPEG reencode and worse recompression stability. I think they probably could have added those though, and then we wouldn't have yet another format to support for eternity. Oh well, they had their chance.