I'm not too familiar with this. Is the JPEG-XL already adopted by other browsers (read: Chome)?
this post was submitted on 05 Sep 2026
49 points (100.0% liked)
Technology
87833 readers
3075 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
[...] today we posted our intent to ship JPEG XL. Chrome are also intending to ship, and given there’s already a partial implementation in Safari, the format will be supported across browsers before the end of the year.
Hoping for the best 🙏
What is the big gain over AVIF?
It's great at lossless? but I never use lossless for web images
- "lossless" reencoding of jpeg
- Encoding with "butteraugli distance =1" ensures that you compress optimally without the human eye being able to see the difference, it's an awesome "fire and forget" setting for all your images besides lossless.
- Unlimited size, multiple layers, better colors, more bit depth. Avif has severe limitations as an image format.
But for specific cases like comics and stronger compression at about 60% quality it's currently better. I've heard jpegXL encoders still have some ways to improve though. For stronger compression avif can use "ssimulacra2" which is a great metric to avoid compression artifacts for encoders. So ideally jpegXL would support both butteraugly (high quality) and simulacra2 for low quality / high compression.
the big win is that it can re-encode existing jpegs to shrink them by like 30%. also the image is compressed spatially (i think that's the word) so it can be displayed as it's downloading rather than coming in line by line.
I think many of us have several GBs of JPEGs that have accumulated over the years. It would be nice to shrink them a bit.
However I wouldn't do it until the majority of my software supports it. At least with JXL, you can transcode it back to legacy jpeg without losing quality
The biggest hurdle are messengers, especially including cross-platform support and mobile devices.
YES! finally!