Install firefoxnow with native jxl supporthttps://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/firefox/releases/152.0/
>>109069302where are the jxl images then??? well??? go on, start linking!!!
>>109069312https://files.catbox.moe/8uif00.jxl
>>109069302Too little, too late. Practically speaking JXL is a dead format now that AVIF recently adopted a percetual IQ tune (by default) in libavif.http://aomedia.org/blog%20posts/Libavif_v1_4_0-Boasts-Major-Updates-to-Encoder-Technology/The final nail in the coffin is going to be widespread hardware accelerated AVIF decoding in the next few years or so. I doubt JXL software decoding will be able to compete with that.
>>109069456suck my dick daizchoke on ityour troon frame loop will never be an image format
we are so back
>>109069491Did you not read?>practicallyJXL is still good on paper and troonfox adding support could revive it a little but is that really going to be enough to keep JXL from the grave like FLIF/PIK/FLUIF/and whatever other meme shit they came up with in the last decade or so?
Did you know you can create TINY jpeg xl images of just a few bytes in size? https://jpegxl.info/art/
>>109069797None of these load for me on any mobile browser. What a stupid piece of shit format.
>>109069456>hardware acceleratedHow many years are you going to spam this. It's an image. It does not matter; nobody uses hardware decoding for jpeg even though most hardware has it, because all software uses libjpeg-turbo which is cpu-only.
>>109069312
>>109069330>it downloads the image anyway just to immediately open it locallywhy???
>>109069797kek
>>109069897Keep telling yourself that. When you use a phone 90% of the reason it feels fast while having suspiciously long battery life isn't because the CPU is just as powerful as an i9-9001KFC while consuming 0.1W, it's because it's either mostly:A) Using the GPU to render UI/backendB) Using fused on media ASICs to decode video/images at 9001 FPS/9001 MP/s while using 0.1 watts of power.>"[5.1/H-1-17] MUST have at least 1 hardware image decoder supporting AVIF Baseline Profile."https://source.android.com/docs/compatibility/14/android-14-cddAnyway it's 100% objectively true that if hardware accelerated AVIF decoding becomes widespread, JXL is deader than dead.
>>109069456>>109070094Lossless AVIF is a joke and not competitive with lossless JXL at all.
>>109070135Fair point but most people would prefer either the JXL or AVIF image in >>109069456 because:A) You can't tell them apart (without zooming in past 100%)B) Because the lossy JXL and lossy AVIF images are 90% smaller in filesize they load infinitely faster no matter what your internet speed is.C) Websites who use the lossy JXL or lossy AVIF image will have infinitely smaller hosting billsOn a practicality scale there's no good reason to use lossless on the internet 90% of the time. The exception being SVG but that accounts for what, 1% of all images on the web?
>>109070061I don't know, but that shit is fucking annoying desu
>>109069829it's not the format that's a stupid piece of shit, it's those browsers for not implementing it ,nigga!
Software decoding is for niggers. White men use hardware decoding.
>>109070228I haven't found anything on a 5 minute google search on widespread JXL hardware acceleration in the near future.You sure JXL isn't just FLIF 2.0 PIK 2.0 FLUIF 2.0?
>>109070252But anon don't you want to stand up to the evil nazis who burned books on cutting off your cock and wearing a dress? So what if your phone battery life is nuked to pieces and gives you third degree burns...
webp/avif jewjeet filth gets the rope
>>109069741>did you not readi dont read daiz posts
>>109070334>>109070345Why this religious devotion to JXL anyway? AVIF has improved enough to be just as good as JXL is real photographic inages as demonstrated in >>109069456I could easily flood this thread with the numerous examples of where JXL loses to AVIF in Anime images but I'm trying to stay objective here.If both AVIF and JXL are now about equal in photographic images why do you feel deep in your heart that AVIF should go and JXL should stay despite no near planned future deployment of hardware acceleration for JXL?
>>109069312pornhub has been serving jxl thumbnails for a whilesome sites using cloudinary have it enabled, the images on https://cloudinary.com/ for example are all .jxl
>>109070366now show a comparison of a 1mb image instead of 100kb
>>109070061>>109070218https://thorium.rocks/misc/jxl-test-page/red-room.jxlIt's because catbox is telling the browser the content type is "application/octet-stream" instead of "image/jxl", and the x-content-type-options: nosniff header tells the browser to trust that instead of using MIME sniffing (to prevent XSS/MIME confusion attacks).Nginx currently doesn't specify the image/jxl mimetype so you need to manually configure it, they also don't have any plans to add it to the default config.https://github.com/nginx/nginx/blob/master/conf/mime.typeshttps://github.com/nginx/nginx/pull/1088#issuecomment-3773873842>If you need additional types in your configuration, consider updating your local mime.types file or extending the existing list using the types directive.>We consider mime.types to be in a frozen state and unlikely to accept new types.>Requests whose sole purpose is to extend the default mime.types file will be closed.
>>109070410Those images hit SSIMU2 8080 = very high quality. Distortion not noticeable by an average observer in a side-by-side comparison at 1:1 from a normal viewing distance. This corresponds to the typical output of cjxl -d 1.5 / -q 85 or libjpeg-turbo 4:2:2 quality 85.https://github.com/cloudinary/ssimulacra2Keep in mind that SSIMU2 was created by the same person who made JXL so it's biased toward JXL to begin with...
>>109070094>attempts to sperg yet another interesting threadDO NOT ENGAGE
>>109070432I accept your concession.
>>109069741>but is that really going to be enough to keep JXL from the grave like FLIF/PIK/FLUIF/and whatever other meme shit they came up with in the last decade or so?chrome is also adding back support for itwindows 11 has native supportapple safari/os/macos has had native support for it for a long time, you can even take pictures with it (same on recent samsung phones)plus, it will be part of the pdf standardit's not going anywhere at this pointalso... >FLIF/PIK/FLUFall of these are literally at the base for lossless jpeg-xl, those formats didn't die, they just got renamed, this is like what happened to daala (became part of av1).the official flif website literally states that "FLIF development has stopped since FLIF is superseded by FUIF and then again by JPEG XL, which is based on a combination of Pik and FUIF. For more information, see Jon's JXL info page or visit the JPEG XL Discord server."so your point doesn't make any sense in the first place, even ignoring the fact that those formats never had support anywhere while jxl is already almost widespread.
As of 2026, all the best media codecs are open and royalty-free!AV2 for videosFLAC for lossless audioOpus for lossy audioJPEG XL for lossless and lossy images
>>109069302>for tranny month they decided to make private browsing int oa fucking purple faggot pagethank you men who are pedos! I Stand With Faggots!!!
>>109070061loads normal for me
>>109070464tl;dr?
>>109070420Interesting, so JXL is DOA for the web? Might still be good for personal archiving photos though, right?
>>109070585>thread about jxl support on firefox>people point out a weird behaviour about it>itoddler running safari chimes in because he hasn't learned how to read yetclassic
>>109070614I hope this was some retarded bait attempt, if you truly need a tl:dr for such a tiny amount of text you really need to kys
>>109070634>some sites are currently running software that doesn't properly implement the mime type for jxl so jxl is totally doa???
>>109069302>https://ftp.
>>1090706574chan is LITERALLY running 2012 software.Anyway here's my prediction of what will REALLY happen: in the next 10 years Webp is going to EXPLODE in adoption. There's active work on improving the encoder beyond what jpegli is capable of, retains massive backward compatability, and has the lowest software decoding out of all modern image formats.Also curbstomps GIF and PNG into oblivion.
>>109070834>4chan is the entire webthat doesn't improve things, it still makes no sense what you're trying to say.>There's active work on improving the encoder beyond what jpegli is capable ofby the time this thing gains traction avif/jxl will already have close to the same compatibility, and software decode performance won't be an issue anymore as average computing power is increased (ignoring the fact that it is already not an issue since radio transmission consumes more power than what an avif takes to decode on a 5+ year old midrange phone, i'm sick and tired of having to post the same data over and over again), the jews will have moved on from webp already.
>>109070834>look it up>A commercial license from Halide Compression means guaranteed ongoing support, as well as access to new Iris-WebP releases and maintenance fixes over time.>An Iris-WebP license is an investment in the future of web image compression in pursuit of a more beautiful web. If you'd like to use Iris today, send us an email! kekwyeah nobody is using this, not to mention the odds of them having cheated those benchmarks is pretty much 100%, as with every time some sketchy company claims to have a better encoder for X format that you cannot use before paying a license.you are either falling for the oldest silliest scam known to man or you're just a shill.
>>109070882nah, webp will RKO modern codecs and you will cry delicious tears of codec autismYou seriously believe iris-webp isn't dangerous to jxl/avif?
>>109070908>You seriously believe iris-webp isn't dangerous to jxl/avif?...yesbased on the fact it requires obtaining and paying for a mistery license alone.websites routinely choose to waste 50%+ more bandwidth to serve h264 video over h265, why would you believe they will pay for this bullshit that is claiming up to 17% bandwidth reduction? even if that claim were to be real (it's not), it's probably either cheaper or way less of an hassle to pay that 17% bandwidth, especially when you could just use avif/jxl instead and save 30+% without paying anything to these silly jews.
I have a dream. An imageboard that supports webp, avif and jxl and drops /gif/
>>109071031umigalaxy supports webp lossless at least, that's SOMETHING
>>109070426sure, but they are like 1 megapixel. How about a realistic size?
>>109071448Okay but you should know that AVIF is more efficient at higher resolutions so it's NOT really a "fair" test desu. 1MP throttles AV1s 128x128 superblock efficiency hacks whoch seem to outperform JXL's varDCT thing.https://files.catbox.moe/2rotpr.pnghttps://files.catbox.moe/uafv5j.avifhttps://files.catbox.moe/9bamvb.jxl
>>109069741pornhub uses it, and if you don't know, much of what is considered "standard" in video websites was started by ph, youtube just copies.
png or death
>>109072592https://w3techs.com/technologies/overview/image_formatIf I understand picrel correctly BMP is infinitely less popular than AVIF. JXl is infinitely less popular than BMP...Sorry but until JXL gets the same level of software/browser support as AVIF, it'll continue being a niche image format.
>>109070474Support for av{1,2} and jxl isn't not that much, other proprietry and older codec have more support, like hevc, avc, webp and jpeg.
>>109071031What stops them from supporting every supported formats by the main browsers? Is it security or what? Can't you also just use something like catbox, and embed them?
>>109072659Webp isn't proprietary, iris-webp however is, see >>109070834If the latter changes then it's not that far fetched to see Webp become the next universal image format on the web.
>>109072676Yup, adopting Webp a few years ago would have been a completely fucktarded mistake.https://www.ox.security/blog/what-you-need-to-know-about-the-libwebp-exploit/BTW this is coming from someone who thinks we should adopt Webp before JXL/AVIF. You adopt either of the latter right now and you might get FUCKED with some brutally nasty 0-day.
>>109072676Also using catbox to host image is very JEWISH behaviour.
Firefox sucks
>>109069456Middle image is blurry like you put vaseline on the lens. Unusable.
>>109072797I think I'l trust the metric developed by the leading perceptual quality nerds.btw many complain that SSIMU2 is biased toward JXL and gives that artificially higher points. In my testing I don't see that tho.
>>109072712retard
>>109073518https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hotlinking
jxl is futureproof. avif is ok today and will be old 10 years later.
I stopped using firefox when they bricked their authentication to try and force users to upgrade to the new shit version.
>>109069302Updated. Now if only cdisplayex was still under development and released a desktop version with jxl support...
>>109069312https://nyaa.si/?f=0&c=0_0&q=jxl
>>109070420You might have more success getting Angie (nginx successor) to support image/jxl OOTB. Nobody should be using nginx in current year anyway.
>>109069456From my experience AVIF has worse compression than webp in a lot of cases, while requiring a lot more compute to render. AVIF is a fucking joke of a format.
>>109070061https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/open-in-browser/
>>109074757sex
Please link more jixel filesShould I convert all my jaypegs to jixels now since that conversion is lossless?
https://yande.re/post/show/1262734Compressing this 11.8MB png at same settings on XnView MP, it yields 631Kb avif || 698 jxl. In terms of quality they're identical but I'm blind and retarded, maybe the avif is a smidge brighter (which is nice). Also, it takes 10-12 seconds to convert to jxl on my 5800X, fucking sucks.
>>109069302I have no idea what jxl format is, but my fedora machine by default uses jxl for its background imageI guess it's the newest cool kid image format
>>109075212it's a modern ".jpeg"
>>109072712Why? It was created to host media for ever and to allow sharing it, from reading their TOS it seems it's only forbidden to use catbox as a cdn for your ecommerce website, or something akin. If users would use it as way to share pics or media in a forum/board, how is that jewish?
>>109072698But wouldn't this apply to all media? What if librandommedia had some exploit, would that mean we should ban randommedia? Browsers have enough level of sandboxing that a vulnerability in the rendering process in a tab wouldn't affect the whole system, nor the whole browser afaik. If not, then their design is flawed.
>>109070420>nosniffbrapfags on suicide watch
>>109070266>widespread JXL hardware acceleration in the near future.Did you find anything on JPEG?
idk where youd even encounter jxl filesGame bar and nvidia app save hdr screenshots in jxr which sucks and isnt supported, idk why they dont move to avif
>>109075423Why not HEIF?
>>109075432avif is free, good at compression, more supported than other hdr formats
>>109075440HEIF is what cameras shoot though and it's also backed by Apple. Yeah, I will admit the licensing situation of it depending on HEVC is not great though. If Mozilla and Chrome could find away around the licensing then that would be nice.
>>109072698not sandboxing your media processing, both server side and browser side, is the bigger mistake here methinks
>>109070585/thread
>>109074922are you just a contrarian.sure, it seems to have legitimate cases but seems irrelevant unless you are the literal russian military.
>>109073757posting a link =/= hotlinkingeither you did not even read that link, or you're too stupid too understand it
>>109069302Fucking finally.Enabled by default when?
>he fell for the lossless memekek
>>109072659av1 is kinda supported on everything that matters now. all the new iphones have it, all the new android socs have it, all the laptops made in the last couple years have it, the new tv boxes have it. i doubt netflix cares about /g/ users on a decade-old thinkpad that only has up to hevc
>>109069312https://jpegxl.info/resources/jpeg-xl-test-page.html
>>109080117https://thorium.rocks/misc/jxl-test-page/
