Folks who want to see JPEG-XL supported in more browsers, what is it about the format that attracts you to its use on the web compared to currently supported formats?
Post
Replies:
4
@jaffathecake I've been exposed to quite a few questions/opinions about JPEG-XL over the last couple of years. From what I've seen and heard mentioned by others, its lossless compression is best-in-class for both file size and encode/decode times. Its lossy encoding speed is also brilliant compared with the CPU-intensive AVIF/AV1 but I realise that's less of a concern to web browsers. There's some discussion at https://github.com/lovell/sharp/issues/2731 if you haven't already seen it.
@lovell fwiw, I just did some testing, and JPEG XL takes 2.5x to decode compared to an equivalent AVIF.
@jaffathecake Ooh, was this with rust-based decoders or the C++ "reference" libraries or perhaps something else? Do you have example images that led to this figure? It'd be great to get some fair and up-to-date benchmark comparisons of lossy/lossless encoding/decoding. Thank you!
@lovell I tested the Safari shipped implementation, but also the behind-a-flag Firefox implementation, and the old Chromium behind-a-flag one. The test: https://random-stuff.jakearchibald.com/apps/img-decode-bench/
