What do you have against JPEG XL my man?
>>109272501It's not supported anywhere. I was a JPEG2000 supporter, so I want XL to get adopted, but it won't. JPEG and PNG are basically all you need.
>>109272501if it starts with a J, i'm not interested
>>109272548>I don't like small filesizes
>>109272566no, i don't like formats that start with J. i was really confident that there would definitely be no room for misinterpretation there. i'm extremely autistic so i have no idea if i somehow wrote something that led you to the wrong conclusion, or if you're just gaslighting me.in either case, you are gay.
>>109272529Chrome and Firefox recently added support
>>109272674>I'm a little faggot who doesn't like formats starting with the letter J, but somehow the gay is you
>>109272501This isn't mine but tl;dr, do we really need 2 competing standards? If AVIF is just as good as JXL in photographic content then of what use is keeping JXL around?I'm not strictly against JXL btw, a few years ago looking at how it outperformed AVIF in photographic content by like 20-30% it would have gotten my vote. But now, not so much.https://desuarchive.org/g/thread/108858557/#108862114Like I said, edge cases still exist, I'm not denying that AT ALL. ON AVERAGE though, for real world photography, JXL is legit being threatened by AVIF's new high IQ tune, which is enabled by default on libavif now btw, it's no longer a SEKRIT 1337 code known by a few autists.https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Male_Silkie.pngAgain this is explicitly regarding VERY HIGH quality, as now established by SSIMU2 creators, a metric currently seen as the closest you can get to assigning a number to expected subjective human opinion.>80 = 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/ssimulacra2
>>109272707When 4chan supports it, I'll consider it supported.
>>109272716>the gay is youyes
>>109272745>I let incompetent retards maintaining a 12-year obsolete codebase dictate my worldview
>>109272775What else would I need it for? PNG is universal for lossless and JPG is universal for lossy.
>>109272728>do we really need 2 competing standardsno we don't>If JXL is just as good as AVIF in photographic content then of what use is keeping AVIF aroundthere is none, and AVIF will vanish into the void once browser manufactures are too annoyed to keep maintaining that dead garbage
>>109272745It took 9 years for 4chan to support VP9 after release. 4chan admins move like snails in wet concrete when it comes to adding new things.
>>109272529JPEG doesn't support transparency and PNG doesn't have photo-friendly compression that would be efficient for high-res pictures with transparent backgrounds.
>>10927297690-99% of online photos are from phones. That shit doesn't matter. JPEG and PNG are more than enough.
>>109272801JPEG XL does both better than both.
>>109273056what's the exif situation like for XL?>>109272775>mostly post on 4chan>4chan only supports jpeg and png>that's what I got>feel content>get seething grug telling me 4chan dictates my worldviewyou're totally not wrong, but you're seething. I'd phrase it "4chan dictates what tech you use with 4chan"it's like needing to remove exif data in order for my jpegs not to rotate on this site. GOS dev really seethed over this too
I'm glad 4chanXT allows me to upload avif files
>>109272997Phone cameras have gotten much better over the decades. They're not the noisy grainy low-resolution stuff people remember from 2005. People are filming actual movies with iPhone Pros now.
>>109272922I don't think you get what I'm selling. A few years ago there was a pretty clear consensus:A) AVIF achieved better compression than JXL in non-photographic images (ie screenshots, anime, charts, graphs, etc)B) JXL achieved 20-30% better compression than AVIF in photographic images, particularly in the high to very high quality (ie SS2 70 and SS2 80), VERY desirable by users.C) Most images on the web, on average, are not anime tiddies. Pretty much everyone wanted JXL support. Google who blocked JXL support in browsers is seen as the devil.https://giannirosato.com/blog/post/image-comparison/HOWEVERTHOUGHBEIT, in 2026 this happened:>Tune IQ has four major goals>Improve compression efficiency on specific image quality metrics (e.g., SSIMULACRA 2)>Improve perceptual quality by humans>Maintain more consistent quality within each image>Encode images with quality consistently close to the specified target quality>Encouraged by the enthusiastic feedback of early adopters, the libavif team conducted several rounds of evaluation and subjective testing to guide further enhancement.>After a year of continuous bug fixes and quality refinements, tune IQ became the default tuning mode for images in libavif v1.4.0 in March 2026.https://aomedia.org/blog%20posts/Libavif_v1_4_0-Boasts-Major-Updates-to-Encoder-Technology/Now the consensus is no longer clear. Users who care about image quality of ANIME TIDDIES are obviously going to root for AVIF but they're the minority.People who used to vehemently advocate for JXL because it did so well in photographic images at high to very high subjective quality are stumped.Do they keep supporting JXL out of some bizzare loyalty thing or some imaginary "race war" against Google?Do they concede and admit that AVIF being good at photographic image quality makes JXL redundant?Like IDK man, what do we gain by mass abandoning AVIF? What do we gain by mass abandoning JXL? The answer is no longer black and white.
>>1092731064chan being retarded is a 4chan problem. Keep seething.
>>109273204jpeg-xl is adopted into PDF and various other standards already. AVIF has none of that.As you said, there is no point of keeping both around. AVIF is dead.AVIF doesn't even cover the use-cases jpeg-xl does, so it is an inferior product anyway. Google is free to keep maintaining that garbage till all of infinity, if they wish so, it's their personal decision and their personal money they throw out of the window for no benefit whatsoever... but nobody is going to use it, since jpeg-xl is already widely adopted.
>>109273223>but nobody is going to use it, since jpeg-xl is already widely adopted.Anon, please snap out of LA-LA land. That's LITERALLY not even close to what's happening in real life.JXL can be adopted into dozens and dozens of niche standards but treating AVIF as harmless is foolish.If you want to focus on niche things then one could argue that ANIME TIDDES has DOOMED JXL, but that's a stupid statement to make, isn't it?>WebP is used by 20.8% of all the websites.https://w3techs.com/technologies/details/im-webp>AVIF is used by 1.5% of all the websites.https://w3techs.com/technologies/details/im-avif>JPEG XL is used by less than 0.1% of all the websites.https://w3techs.com/technologies/details/im-xljpeg
>>109273204>Now the consensus is no longer clearThe consensus is still that JXL is the format of the future.Even if you argue about compression size (they are often comparable), it doesn't change the fact that AVIF is a stopgap hack with a single narrow purpose, and JXL is built from the ground up to cover all cases.
>>109273360>"LA-LA-LA-LA I can't hear you, I'm currently gargling Jon Sneyer's cum!">"Google is literal Satan incarnate that must be destroyed by hellfire..">"But god dam is Jon Sneyer's come delicious!"It was a mistake to expect technical discussion here on 4chan. I don't even know why I bother to post here anymore desu.
>>109273204Av1 been replaced by av2 alreadyNobody cares about animeTherefore JXL won
>>109273486>conflating image codecs with video codecsreddit moment
>>109272501I converted all my .png, .jpg and random .webms to .jxl ~2 years ago, running purely on hopium that it'll get wider adoption as it seemed excellent on technical meritsI'm glad I was rightonly non-jxl I have is from my phone
>>109272501The name is kind of stupid desu.>Jpeg eXtra LargeWhy would anyone want a bigger Jpeg?
>>109273204Telavif on average is ~4x as computationally intensive as jxl, which makes it the only practical choice from jxl/avif/heicyou lost, tranny
>>109277402FPGA AVIF encoders outperform JXL in encoding speed though I'm not sure how much compression efficiency they sacrifice.SVT-AV1 might be the bridge between those. If I'm reading the SVT-AV1 parameter page correctly you can now enable the IQ tune just like with AOM. You'd need to be incredibly autistic to measure all of this while having enough money to blow on a $5,000 FPGA card to test picrel though.>[0 = VQ (video and still image)>1 = PSNR (video and still image)>2 = SSIM (video and still image)>3 = IQ (still image only)>4 = MS-SSIM (video and still image)>5 = VMAF (video only)]https://gitlab.com/AOMediaCodec/SVT-AV1/-/blob/master/Docs/Parameters.md
>>109277493I’m talking decoding, you encode only once but when I open a folder full of avif my 9800x3d chokesjxl is already kinda shit for speed, but provides plenty of reasons to migrate from png and jpg. but jxl while slow is usable on a modern cpu. avif is visibly slower so it would need hardware decoding like apple has for heic, which… isn’t happening anytime soon
>>109277650Even found the benchmark I ranI could post code again but nobody ever runs it anyway and it takes 2 posts so idc, ocr a line from the image and search on archive and you’ll find it
AVIF? Interesting.
png or death
loseless should be a separate extension
>>109272501I'll never forgive JXL for killing this little fella.But also, the more serious answer is https://caniuse.com/?search=jxlSo even though technically I have nothing against jxl and want it to succeed, sadly I have to settle for avif because jxl is just vaporware.
>>109278074Applesisters… we won
downloaded 2 GB of comics in JPEG format, losslessly converted to 1.6 GB in JXL, loads just as fast, pretty nice.
>>109277650>>109277712Not sure how you're measuring decoding but there's countless examples of JXL having the worst decode performance out of modern image formats. BUTTT BUTTT, I'll give the benefit of the doubt to JXL, maybe decoding really has gotten 10X better.Try a decode benchmark test with the commands in picrel.
>>109277650>avif is visibly slower so it would need hardware decoding like apple has for heic, which… isn’t happening anytime soonIt already exists on devices that can hardware decode AV1 video. /g/ loves to shit on AVIF because it's a "video codec pretending to be an image format" but ironically that's one of those weird scenarios where that's not really a bad thing.
>>109279613Given that it takes forever to show previews (or even open individual files if large enough) on my desktop with 5070ti I doubt thatIn contrast av1 decoding works fine
>>109279659Sounds like an OS/hardware problem. Jeetdows 11? afsfafafas linux distro? DRAMLESS SSD? Spinning rust?8 MP/4K AVIF/JXL images load pretty much instantly for me on jpegview image viewer on Windows 10 LTSC 2019, running on an i5-6500 CPU without a dGPU. 500 GB 870 evo SSD btw.I personally can't really tell which one is faster. The only thing I actually notice is AVIF achieves higher quality at low file sizes for Anime images (ie gelbooru NSFW).
>>109272501it's not that i have anything against given format in particular.but rather i'm not fond ISO/IEC working groups, who may claim being "non-profit" copy of the standard is like $300 starting.and also i'm rather "salty" that when jpeg needed an update when digital cameras got popular they wasted time for this patent-encumbered garbage known as jpeg2000, that nobody dared to touch with a 300 foot pole
>>109279773HEIC is a disease spread by Apple right now. History repeats itself as usual.Sometimes I wonder if we should all focus on improving Webp instead. There's already a better encoder for it as of right now called Iris-Webp but alas it's fucking proprietary. We just can't seem to have noce things.
I wish all iPhone models used JPEG XL instead of HEIC.
>>109279794Or you could use jxl whose encoder isn’t proprietarywebp is obsolete shit anyway, if it doesn’t even support features that a modern $250 chinkphone’s camera outputs then it’s obviously the wrong choice
>>109272548WebJ it is, then.
>>109279930Webp is nowhere near obsolete. It'll be the go-to fallback for JXL/AVIF.Iris-Webp is literal scientific proof that the stock libwebp encoder can be improved just like how mozjpeg exists (but nobody uses). If someone makes an open source competitor to this then Webp can probably live on another decade or so IMHO.https://halide.cx/iris/
>>109279963>trash hdr>much worse color management>limited to 8bit in practice as 10/12b is more theoreticalwebp is fucking obsolete, boo. Web Picture. It’s made for a purpose and is limited, it was never intended for high-end imaging workflows, and in practice isn’t even sufficient for contemporary phone pics.i’d rather suffer the ballache of dealing with heic on winblows than use webp as my format of choice, and I’m not interested in having five different image formats for different purposes
>>109280082>hdr>"muh 10-bit!!!"Most people don't a fuck. They just want things to load quickly. AVIF/JXL do this, obviously.But what you DONKEY stubborn jackasses don't seem to wrap your head around is that if AVIF/JXL for whatever reason fail to load or cause performance issues (ie some fucking sister fucking hillybilly on a dual-core celeron)...THEN falling back on Webp is LE GOOD!Understandiiiiii? Maybe?
>>109277712>>109279700AV1 hardware decoders don't necessarily support every feature of AV1. Video is basically 4:2:0 chroma subsampling and 8/10-bit only, but avifenc by default uses 4:4:4 and up to 12-bit, which AFAIK hardware decoders don't support.
>>109280796Right, which is why I mentioned SVT-AV1 in >>109277493I don't think websites would use AOM for mass converting millions for images. Dunno if they'll use FPGAs, that's not cheap at least the initial upfront cost. SVT-AV1 seems like a reasonable default for them but I'm somewhat afraid they may not use the IQ tune...
>>109280796ALSO there is another issue with hardware accelerated compliant AVIF images is they're required to be cut up into 4k/8 MP chunks so there is fear of boundary artifacts pissing people off.
BTW, you can shit on AVIF for having 4K/8 MP tiles but this is much much worse on HEIC. Like it doesn't even make any sense to me, 4K tiles should be possible with HEVC but they don't use them in HEIC.
>>109281061It's for performance reasons, it literally says so in your screenshot. Since tiles/slices are independent, they can be encoded and decoded in parallel.Btw, BD and UHD-BD also use this, and nobody ever complained.
>>109281061>>109281246Oh, and AV1 can also use smaller tiles. Youtube uses 8 tiles for 1080p with HFR HDR content.
>>109281246hmmmm, I wonder how you'd even test this in libavif. Maybe SSIMULACRA2 is racist against image tiles?In a related note, does JXL have this magic trick? Or are you FORCED to render say a 100MP JXL image completely in one go against your will? Breaking up huge 100MP images into 4K tiles sounds like a great performance bargain thing.
>>109281388The relevant options for avifenc are called --tilerowslog2 and --tilecolslog2.I'm not quite sure about JXL, but cjxl has an option called --faster_decoding, and since v.0.12.0 there's the option --buffering which I believe uses some kind of tiling to speed up encoding and reduce memory use.
>>109281588Hmmmm, I don't notice any tile boundaries mein fuhrer. Either it's not a problem or there's another missing parameter.
>>109281687>Either it's not a problemIt usually isn't, especially not when targeting high quality:>>109281246>Btw, BD and UHD-BD also use this, and nobody ever complained.Though there might be some weird worst case sample that I don't know of.
>>109280337>>"muh 10-bit!!!">Most people don't a fuck.you can't take a picture of a sky and have it look good at 8 bit. having blue sky in photos isn't exactly unusualstop fucking coping about your dead-end codec>if AVIF/JXL for whatever reason fail to load or cause performance issuesidgaf about your thirdie toaster from 2014>THEN falling back on Webp is LE GOOD!sure, as long as you serve a real format first. your fallback might as well be .bmp for all i care
>>109282437>idgaf>"Me! Me! Me!"Good god I hope other advocates are nowhere near as inssuferable as you are because otherwise JXL is just going to become a huge pain in the ass to everyone trying to live a normal life.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UjZDDtPK4jM
>>109282511if you want maximum compatibility might as well stick with jpgreplacing a shitty, ancient codec with slightly less shitty codec (but worse support) makes no sense when a good alternative exists>otherwise JXL is just going to become a huge pain in the ass to everyone trying to live a normal lifeit's just fucking images you autistgood job posting a fucking png when shilling for m-muh space savings of webm, btw
>>109282836Why stop there? Why not cinepak?
>>109272529the main browsers, image viewers and the open sauce image editing tools support itit's pretty nice
>>109278074it didn't kill flif, it adopted much of it into JXL after flif on its own didn't make it over 6+ years.it's the best realistic outcome really
>>109272674>When an autistic pajeer has spent their entire career working with Java classes.
