>>1963 I'm no expert but what I've been hearing is that JXL can reduce the filesize of existing JPG images without applying lossy compression to them and both WEBP and AVIF can't do that.
I'm in favor of JXL support since it won't lead to lossy to lossy image degradation.
>>1963 Right now I'm leaning more towards, no. Many of the issues in AVIF have been fixed/addressed so overall JXL doesn't seem to bring a lot to the table.
Before: JXL achieved 20-30% better compression efficiency at high fidelity lossy image compression Today: AVIF with the IQ tune (on be default in avifenc) achieves parity or outperforms JXL at high fidelity lossy image compression
Before: JXL offered advanced progressive image loading while AVIF only had it experimentally Today: AVIF has official progressive image loading, it's no longer experimental
Before: JXL was able to compress 16-bit color image files while AVIF maxed out at 12-bit Today: AVIF can now use bit depth extensions to emulate 16-bit color image files while remaining backwards compatible
Before: JXL achieved exceptionally fast image compression compared to AVIF for similar quality Today: SVT-AV1-HDR seems to be the first high image fidelity lossy AVIF encoder faster than the AOM implementation and offers 4:4:4 not just 4:2:0 compression
But I'm glad JXL is putting up a fight tbh, we would have never gotten the IQ tune, full progressive, ect ect. Without a competitor AVIF would have stayed dogshit/boring. The new rust JXL decoder is proof that this image codec can still be improved, I do hope it gets better.
>>1967 I try and I apologize to OP but dam it's so hard to justify support for JXL right now. I'm not alone either, Gianni Rosato came to the same conclusion especially when taking Iris-Webp into account. If you do decide to add support anyway I'd at least wait until 2027 to see how much the rust JXL decoder improves.
>>1963 He's biased void. There's plenty of arguments in support of JXL. Maybe more people would come to your site if you allowed JXL as well. It's all they bitch about on /g/ so the demand is there.
>>1949 >JXL is now supported on Chrome and Firefox. >@void do you have future plans to add JXL support to your site? I was looking into the availability and it's still quite low, I think we might need to let it mature a bit. Since chrome now fully supports it, I think availability might increase rather "fast"
I told /g/ the news. Thanks for taking the time to respond but we'll be going to the fuze imageboard for JXL. You should make a thread on /g/ when you add JXL doe, it will help the image format grow.
>>1977 Yeah it's all good anon By the way if you go to the slop version of the thread at https://slop.umigalaxy.com/explore/technology/1949 you can use the Pin Reply option and pin a reply you make with the link to the fuze imageboard. That way you can redirect other anons interested in JXL there in the meanwhile
