Hopefully this site will also enable uploads soon.

>>107430913
It will in 10 years

>>107430913
I don't think it ever will. The best bet would be 4chanXT using some in-browser decoding making the jxl to a jpg before upload.

>lossy
lol
lmao even

>>107431070
It supports lossless mode, tard. It even does special lossless compression for JPEGs that compresses them further without altering the original JPEG. You literally can't lose.

>>107431112
thanks, but im sticking with png
nothing supports your meme format

>>107431112
Thanks for pointing the retard out.
>>107431124
Literally all OSes support it. It's just Chromium gatekeeping it. You can use it everywhere, and once Chromium pushes it, it will also be in browsers.

File: file.png (92 KB, 532x839)

92 KB PNG

>>107431139
firefox doesnt support it

>>107431148
They have a flag in nightly to enable it. It's literally ready but they're pussies and are waiting for mom Google to release it for Chromium

>>107431159
ok but does it display as thumbnail? webp doesnt which is why it doesnt feel like a real image format

File: 1764221027378707.png (189 KB, 574x312)

189 KB PNG

>>107431163
Honestly it's been a while since I tried, so I cannot really answer your question in browser.
In my Windows and Arch work stations thumbnails display properly without any issues. So I would assume is something that will be present in browsers too

>>107431163
>ok but does it display as thumbnail? webp doesnt which is why it doesnt feel like a real image format
Go and ask Daddy Microsoft why they can't do that. It works on a real operating system (Linux).

>>107430913
Not impossible given rapeape's bias against google shit.

>>107431219
>>107431180
My photo is from W11 and thumbnails work as you can see lol.

>>107431245
I was talking about webps. I don't know if they're not supported or not but they work on superior operating systems.

>>107430344
>I've already converted my whole HDD with a bash script.
What for? Isn't PNG better? JPEG-XL might be good only in web format or something.

>>107431287
What for?
JPG to JXL is 20% space gian with 0 loss.
PNG to JXL supports lossless conversion and you still gain extra space.
JXL Supports:
>transparency
>animated jxl
>lossless and lossy
>hdr
This is why. It's simply the future

File: JPEG_Generation_Loss_rota(...).jpg (2.37 MB, 1021x4602)

2.37 MB JPG

>>107430344
>JPEG-XL
Is literally garbage.
Stop shilling it your retarded fagot!

>I've already converted my whole HDD with a bash script.
Congratulations of being a retard.
>Retard uses a script
>Retard converts a PNG to JPEG-XL shit
>The image is worse now

And here comes the cope
>b-b-b-b- I can not see the difference
How many new meme formats will you use you retarded fuck?
It is literally 2025 and you can get a 24 TB HDD!

Therese is literally no reason to use anything other then PNG.
>b-b-b- J-shit XL
Is a content damaging file format.
You damaged the quality of your pictures you retarded fuck!

>>107431070
>>lossy
Please do not use this word. The correct word is CONTENT DAMAGING because it damages the content.
1/2

File: amazon 24 TB HDD.png (40 KB, 173x352)

40 KB PNG

>>107431407
2/2

@107431112
@107431124
@107431139
>b-b-b- if you do the meme switches and
WRONG! 1 file format = 1 idea.
>Bro yea totally I did not turn your PNG to shit and saved as webp/jpg-xl and served you it in a degraded format
>LMFAO go and check the flags fagot!
Not playing this game!

>>107431292
>JPG to JXL is 20% space gian with 0 loss.
You lose the picture quality retard.
>b-b-b muh space
Buy a 24 TB HDD retard!

>>107431287
>What for? Isn't PNG better?
Yes in every way webp and jpg-xl are the same shit. Only jpg-xl is not supported by anything so even more of a joke then webm.

>transparency
Like PNG?
>>animated jxl
Sorry we have animated PNGs
>>lossless and lossy
This is why it is a evil format just like webm.

File: 1000001339.png (324 KB, 694x788)

324 KB PNG

This thing feels like a forced meme desu. AV1 I understand because of the following kike shit happening recently:

https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2025/11/hp-and-dell-disable-hevc-support-built-into-their-laptops-cpus/

But JPEG-XL? Sorra feels like an extra unnecessary image format for people in India on dial-up internet. Webp isn't enough? I thought that's the thing we were all going to use for the next few decades or so?

>>107431440
JPEX-XL is just a modern re-design of JPEG. It's JPEG if it were designed today and not in the 2000s.
That's it! No more, no less. If you didn't object to JPEG existing then you shouldn't object to JPEG-XL existing either. There's room for more than one competing image format.

>>107431581
Except isn't that why Webp was created? Webp supports lossy and lossless (with transparency in both), animations (with transparency in lossy and lossless), and bunch of other hoopla that JPG does not support.

>>107431592
Webp was created by Google. JPEG-XL was created by the same people that made JPEG and it was done so independently.

>>107431599
>>107431592
Also Webps lossles compression isn't anywhere near as good as what JPEG-XL can do. Webp was basically an offshoot from Google's VP8 and VP9 development re-using what they'd learned there but was never really that great. They're already working on Webp2:
https://chromium.googlesource.com/codecs/libwebp2/+/df4ec90a2befb79ed45cf8810e8ac93da7a47297/README.md

File: 1000001340.png (348 KB, 1080x2350)

348 KB PNG

>>107431599
????

Who cares if Hitler himself rose from the grave and made Webp with Nazi occult magic, doesn't the end product matter more?

>>107431642
Yes but Webp is already 20-30% better than PNG????

>>107431648
>Yes but Webp is already 20-30% better than PNG????
Of course, anything is better than PNG. It's still not as good as JPEG-XL though. Maybe Webp2 will fix that but that could take years of development.

>>107431435
>You lose the picture quality retard.
fucking idiot https://jpeg.org/jpegxl/
>Existing JPEG files can be losslessly transcoded to JPEG XL, significantly reducing their size. These can be restored into the exact same JPEG file, ensuring backward compatibility with existing JPEG-based applications.

>>107431673
Convert jxl into jxl 1000 times and see your quality.

>>107431581
>It's JPEG if it were designed today and not in the 2000s
>JPEG
>designed in the 2000s
This is bait, right?

>>107431726
JPEG 2000 was definitely designed in the 2000s?

>>107431725
if you're encoding losslessly there will be no quality loss

>>107431737
You weren't talking about JPEG 2000, plus nobody uses that. Also
>JPEG 2000 (JP2) is an image compression standard and coding system. It was developed from 1997 to 2000

>>107431737
>>107431762
Admittedly it never took off outside of some scientific/vision applications. JPEG-XL is actually aiming to be as successful and support the same sort of ideas (high fidelity lossless images) but be widely supported.

>>107431435
> jpg to jxl
There is no loss, it's just compressing the data differently.
I converted many files back to jpg to make sure, and the checksums were identical to the original jpgs.

>>107431803
The encoder actually detects JPEGs and compresses them specially like that on purpose because spoiler, the designs weren't retards and they knew people would try to convert their JPEGs and thought it's probably a good idea to make sure that the end result doesn't turn out worse like the "Needs more JPEG" memes.

>>107431648
>>107431652
Also lossless WebP only supports 8-bit color depth and a maximum of 16383x16383 pixels.

File: 1753999053328099.png (131 KB, 273x523)

131 KB PNG

I am using this:

file="your_image.jpg"; output="${file%.*}.jxl"; cjxl "$file" "$output" --lossless_jpeg=1 -e 7 || cjxl "$file" "$output" --lossless_jpeg=0 -q 90 -e 7 && touch -r "$file" "$output" && rm "$file" && echo "Converted: $file -> $output"

To convert files, but the dimension metadata gets stripped. What am I doing wrong?
the metadata is there

~/2025/12                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         14:17:09 
 exiftool your_image.jxl                                                              
ExifTool Version Number         : 13.36
File Name                       : your_image.jxl
Directory                       : .
File Size                       : 381 kB
File Modification Date/Time     : 2025:12:04 14:16:49+01:00
File Access Date/Time           : 2025:12:04 14:17:10+01:00
File Inode Change Date/Time     : 2025:12:04 14:17:09+01:00
File Permissions                : -rw-r--r--
File Type                       : JXL
File Type Extension             : jxl
MIME Type                       : image/jxl
Major Brand                     : JPEG XL Image (.JXL)
Minor Version                   : 0.0.0
Compatible Brands               : jxl
Image Width                     : 1535
Image Height                    : 2048
Image Size                      : 1535x2048
Megapixels                      : 3.1

~/2025/12                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         14:18:40 
 

But Dolphin doesn't show it anymore.
Doesn't happen with all the pictures though.

>>107431871
>But Dolphin doesn't show it anymore.
If the metadata is there but Dolphin isn't showing it anymore then that's likely a bug on their side and nothing to do with how you converted it.