Some parts of the open source world probably still desperately try to make JXL happen. This is understandable, considering its potential. Shame this wouldn’t work.
JXL can do lossy images (like JPEG) and lossless ones (like PNG), and on average it’ll produce smaller file sizes than both (While beating JPEG quality wise). The killer feature is that it can do lossless recompression of existing JPEG files and shave off about 20% of the file size, and it’s reversible so you can turn those JXL files back into JPEG images for existing software.
The downside is that it was created by Google Research (among others), but the Chrome team made AVIF instead and decided that’s what they’d support and nothing else.
lossless recompression of existing JPEG
Uh… how does it make a JPEG lossless? Or is it lossless in that it makes a JXL out of a JPEG without affecting the original JPEG quality (i.e. no further loss beyond JPEG’s)?
Being able to turn JPEGs into JXLs and JXLs back to JPEGs is cool, though
What’s with the AVIF thing? Yet another I am unfamiliar with (all I know about image formats is JPG = worse quality, PNG = better quality, GIF = animated (and something WebP. Idk much about that one either))
Also, in my research, I’ve found something about the distinction between lossless JXL vs lossy JXL. Seems like you wouldn’t be able to tell if the image is lossy or lossless just from it being a JXL
Now if anyone don’t mind explaining, PNG vs JXL?
JXL is badly supported but it does offer lossless encoding in a more flexible and much more efficient way than png does
Basically jxl could theoretically replace png, jpg, and also exr.
Interestingly, I downloaded GNOME’s pride month wallpaper to see what it looked like, and the files were JXL. Never seen them in the wild before that
Some parts of the open source world probably still desperately try to make JXL happen. This is understandable, considering its potential. Shame this wouldn’t work.
Why are they trying to make it happen, and why it no work? Is JXL better than PNG? Maybe I need to do some research to better learn the difference
JXL can do lossy images (like JPEG) and lossless ones (like PNG), and on average it’ll produce smaller file sizes than both (While beating JPEG quality wise). The killer feature is that it can do lossless recompression of existing JPEG files and shave off about 20% of the file size, and it’s reversible so you can turn those JXL files back into JPEG images for existing software.
The downside is that it was created by Google Research (among others), but the Chrome team made AVIF instead and decided that’s what they’d support and nothing else.
At least Safari supports it.
Being able to turn JPEGs into JXLs and JXLs back to JPEGs is cool, though
What’s with the AVIF thing? Yet another I am unfamiliar with (all I know about image formats is JPG = worse quality, PNG = better quality, GIF = animated (and something WebP. Idk much about that one either))
Also, in my research, I’ve found something about the distinction between lossless JXL vs lossy JXL. Seems like you wouldn’t be able to tell if the image is lossy or lossless just from it being a JXL