undefined | Better HN

0 pointsBurningCycles6y ago0 comments

>Interesting. Where have you seen that adoption will be swifter with JPEG XL instead of, say, AV1/AVIF?

Well, it's not finalized as of yet (though it is imminent), so rate of adoption is just pure guesswork at this stage. However, things I deem necessary for a new image codec to become the next 'de facto' standard are:

royalty free

major improvements over the current de facto standards

Both AVIF and Jpeg XL tick these boxes, however Jpeg XL has another strong feature which is that it offers a lossless upgrade path for existing jpeg's with significantly improved compression as a bonus.

0 comments

rjvs6y ago

So you're suggesting that the advantage JPEG XL has is that it will compress existing JPEGs better than FLIF or AVIF?

BurningCyclesOP6y ago

Yes, it losslessly recompresses existing jpeg's into the jpeg XL format, while also making the files ~20% smaller, key point being lossless. Thus it is the 'perfect' upgrade path from jpeg which is the current lossy standard, as you will get better compression and no loss in quality when shifting to Jpeg XL.

This being a 'killer feature' of course relies on Jpeg XL being very competitive with AVIF in terms of lossy/lossless compression overall.

setr6y ago

I'm assuming this is bidirectional? You can go back from XL to jpeg losslessly as well? If thats the case, I'm having trouble imagining a scenario where you're not correct; it'd be an utterly painless upgrade path

ubercow136y ago

Looks like yes [1]

>A lightweight lossless conversion process back to JPEG ensures compatibility with existing JPEG-only clients such as older generation phones and browsers. Thus it is easy to migrate to JPEG XL, because servers can store a single JPEG XL file to serve both JPEG and JPEG XL clients.

[1] https://jpeg.org/jpegxl/index.html

BurningCyclesOP6y ago

>You can go back from XL to jpeg losslessly as well

I don't think so, but I don't quite see the point unless you are thinking of using it as a way to archive jpeg's, but in that case there are programs specifically for that, like PackJPG, Lepton etc.

3 more replies

lukevp6y ago

Sounds like it will just take an existing JPEG and reduce the size, but not re-compress it - so even though the original JPEG is lossy, there will be no additional loss introduced, whereas another format not based on JPEG would require a re-encode pass that would lose additional information.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 comments

rjvs6y ago

So you're suggesting that the advantage JPEG XL has is that it will compress existing JPEGs better than FLIF or AVIF?

BurningCyclesOP6y ago

This being a 'killer feature' of course relies on Jpeg XL being very competitive with AVIF in terms of lossy/lossless compression overall.

setr6y ago

ubercow136y ago

Looks like yes [1]

[1] https://jpeg.org/jpegxl/index.html

BurningCyclesOP6y ago

>You can go back from XL to jpeg losslessly as well

I don't think so, but I don't quite see the point unless you are thinking of using it as a way to archive jpeg's, but in that case there are programs specifically for that, like PackJPG, Lepton etc.

3 more replies

lukevp6y ago

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse