Comment by VanTheBrand
7 hours ago
JPEGXL literally is able to display images and colors that jpeg and png cannot (32-but floating point, layers, emission independent transparency, spot colors, built im depth maps). It’s not just about compression optimization. So for those use cases standard JPEG and PNG alone will never work. There are “updated” versions of JPEG that support some of these like HDR but those won’t work with any old browser either so back to the same issue.
Can the human eye even tell the difference? This feels like 8k vs 4k tv.
Yes, a hdr photo in heif or jxl is a night and day difference. And if you apply any kind of color edits to the photo it stretches the colors to the point visible banding occurs on jpeg.
You can very easily see ugly banding if you try to use an 8 bit format to store HDR images, and that's all you get with normal jpeg.
Everything should be HDR these days.
But I’m sure there are some that will say 64k of RAM is all anyone will ever need!
Yes, and image editors absolutely can. If JXL lets me correct over/underexposed images by default everywhere I find them then it's worth it even just for that reason alone
Bottom line it can deliver greater quality at much smaller filesizes. Considering RAM and storage are more expensive per byte now than they have been in years, I think it's incumbent on everyone in a position to do so, to use those resources wisely.
WebP and AVIF and HEIC had similar advantages but also some disadvantages (honestly chief disadvantage to WebP in my humble opinion was that nothing except web browsers -- to this day -- seem to support it!).
Another important point in its favor is that JPEG XL is designed as a royalty‑free, open standard, and Google provides a perpetual, worldwide, royalty‑free patent license for its reference implementation.
Avoiding JXL (once the rollout is sufficiently complete) seems, to me, like still shipping (non-animated) .GIF files where .PNG is better and smaller.
Good summary. Thanks. I've played around a bunch with JPEG XL and the lack of JPEG compression artifacts even at much smaller file size is amazing.
> Can the human eye even tell the difference? This feels like 8k vs 4k tv.
Even if it cannot, getting the same quality as 'classic' JPEG in fewer bits is still useful. So you have:
* better quality in the same number of bits
* same quality in fewer bits
On an ecommerce site? Who cares. On instagram or anywhere people share photos? Amazing.
E-commerce is the important use case, particularly in goods where people care about appearance: clothing, cosmetics, food.
Things in these categories have colorful packaging with spot colors, metallic inks, coatings, as well as store displays with carefully designed lighting. The added cost is justified because it increases sales. It makes sense to carry that over online.
Yes, but that’s still a niche use case. Web pages look fine using the colors we already have. Somewhat more vibrant colors are a luxury.
It looks fine sure, but that doesn't make it good either. Are you going to lock display technology to 8 bit forever? Most PC monitors already match or exceeding that limit, phones especially. HDR is something that needs to happen eventually, and for that new format is very important