← Back to context

Comment by BugsJustFindMe

23 days ago

This blog post makes two incompatible arguments:

1) AVIF has now been radically improved to the point where it's actually quite good in ways that previously it was not.

2) JXL will not be improved despite the fact that the performance of every other codec has always radically improved over time.

Everything else aside, including a few clear methodological errors, it's ahistorical and unsightly to be unwilling to imagine that future implementation effort will accomplish anything. Some might call it hypocritical.

11 comments

BugsJustFindMe

Reply
juliobbv  23 days ago

I invite you to re-read the post carefully, with the attention it deserves. Hint: at no point the blog post says JXL will not be improved.

  • BugsJustFindMe  23 days ago

    It sounds like you don't recognize the relationship between text and subtext.

    The entire post amounts to saying "JXL in its first iterations was better than AVIF's more advanced state of development and support, but AVIF very recently got better only after several years of widespread adoption, and I don't think JXL would too".

    The arguments given against JXL cannot be reconciled with the history of codec development.

    • juliobbv  23 days ago

      Maybe you're just bad at reading text. Again, read the post carefully. Look around... nobody else had the same interpretation as you, so maybe that should clue you in something might be off with yours.

      The post literally goes over known ways that JXL can be improved. The actual argument (and this is stated!) is whether those improvements will be enough to make JXL compelling to use for the web vs. other established formats (quality efficiency, encode/decode time, progressive loading, etc).

      Also, don't assume AVIF or even WebP have maxxed out yet :) There are known ways to improve those two too!

      6 replies →