Given these positive signals, we would welcome contributions
Poor Google doesn’t have the manpower to implement it. They can only accept contributions from volunteers.
Google is just a small indie company after all.
Don’t worry, they can spare some 20 percent time
Given these positive signals
Those idiots waited for 4 years because they followed the hype of the moment. I’m glad I removed Google from my life.
This must be your first time seeing what Google support looks like
This is pretty standard unless you can get an exec’s personal attention.
Beyond this, even if you can get engineers to look at a bug ticket, this is how long it takes. It’s months just to get a follow up.
deleted by creator
Absolutely, google does that shit constantly, well known within the internet standards community
That used to be what Microsoft (Internet Explorer) was famous for. I guess Chrome has lived long enough to be the villain, but Firefox is still the hero to me.
Sorry to break it to you, but you might want to start looking at Firefox forks.
Why?
This article gives some information on why some have abandoned hope for Firefox and Mozilla. AI focus, changing its stance on selling user data, and the overall loss of focus. It’s still better than most, IMO, but some of its forks better represent those who feel that way.
“we would welcome contributions to integrate a performant and memory-safe JPEG XL decoder in Chromium. In order to enable it by default in Chromium we would need a commitment to long-term maintenance.”
yeah
I.e. the existing implementation is not usable because it’s not written in rust
Or would they demand it in Go? Or have they abandoned that?
That might work but didn’t think go was
- as safe as rust
- built for CPU intensive operations (aside from potentially concurrent tasks)
The name of the format makes me think it’s regular jpeg, but bigger. Wouldn’t it be better to be smaller? 🤔
No. They increased the max “canvas” size and increased encoding efficiency. You’d want the file size to be smaller but the file itself to be larger (and consequently more detailed)
It’s even more confusing than that; the
Xis for revision 10, and theLis for long term.It’s an update to the JPEG standard intended to cover expected future uses and capabilities.
“10 LTS”?
In my personal tests of jxl, it manages filesizes 1/9th that of png while remaining visually identical (unless looking VERY closely). It’s a massive improvement over jpeg and honestly a replacement for png in most cases.
Like I’m saying 8MB for a 8000x6000 file at max quality (estimating from memory)
Finally.
I just want a picture of a got-dang hot dog.
I just use old JPEGs. Not JPEG2000, not PNG, not WebP, not JPEG XL.
Why though
Because I’m tired of all this nonsense where just because a thing is a mature technology, it’s considered obsolete. Stop constantly pushing for the next thing. Keep the things that work.
Webp is a smaller file size than jpeg for the same image quality in almost all circumstances - so it’s more efficient and quicker to load. It also supports lossless compression, transparency, and animation, none of which jpeg do. And the jpeg gets noticable visual artefacts at a much higher quality than webp does.
People didn’t adopt it to annoy you. It’s started to replace jpeg for the same reason jpeg started to replace bmp - it’s a better, more efficient format.
Webp is a smaller file size than jpeg for the same image quality in almost all circumstances
For lower quality images sure, for high quality ones JPEG will beat it (WebP, being an old video format, only supports a quarter of the colour resolution than JPEG does, etc.) JPEG is actually so good that it still comes out ahead in a bunch of benchmarks, it’s just it’s now starting to show it’s age technology wise (like WebP, it’s limited to 8bpc in most cases)
It also doesn’t hurt that Google ranked sites using WebP/AVIF higher than ones that aren’t (via lighthouse).
Edit: I should clarify, this is the lossy mode. The lossless mode gives better compression than PNG, but is still limited to 8bpc, so can’t store high bit depth, or HDR images, like PNG can.
Edit 2: s/bpp/bpc/
Feel free to use floppy disks. Btw if you are online, you use WebP and PNG all the time 🤣
If you are using Firefox:
- Enter the following in the address bar: about:config
- Search for: image.webp.enabled
- Set it to false Websites are delivering JPG/PNG instead of WebP again.
Everyone should just be using AV1 at this point. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AV1
I assume you mean AVIF? Because AV1 is not an image (file) format but a video compression format (that needs to be wrapped in container file formats to be storable).
“AVIF is an image file format that uses AV1 compression algorithms.” yes i mean that
deleted by creator
please god no
I would be more excited about JPEG XL if it was backward compatible. Not looking forward to yet another image standard that requires OS and hardware upgrades simply so servers can save a few bytes.
How would a new format be backwards-compatible? At least JPEG-XL can losslessly compress standard jpg for a bit of space savings, and servers can choose to deliver the decompressed jpg to clients that don’t support JPEG-XL.
Also from Wikipedia:
Computationally efficient encoding and decoding without requiring specialized hardware: JPEG XL is about as fast to encode and decode as old JPEG using libjpeg-turbo
Being a JPEG superset, JXL provides efficient lossless recompression options for images in the traditional/legacy JPEG format that can represent JPEG data in a more space-efficient way (~20% size reduction due to the better entropy coder) and can easily be reversed, e.g. on the fly. Wrapped inside a JPEG XL file/stream, it can be combined with additional elements, e.g. an alpha channel.
All you have to do is add a small traditional JPEG image at the start of the file. It doesn’t have to be high resolution or more than a couple of kb. The new format decoder would know this, and skip the traditional jpeg “header”, rendering the newer file format embedded in the image.
Would completely defeat the purpose of making a new smaller file format if we prefix if with the old format.
That would have been a brilliant move with wav vs MP3
If you’re really saving 20% in file size with XL, adding back a very compressed preview image that takes up one or two percent isn’t going to cost you much.
but the anger of those looking at whatever they wanted to see, but deep-fried
It requires neither of those upgrades though? Unless you’re still using Windows XP I guess for some reason. It’s just an update to the image decoder
What does backward compability in image format even means? Being able to open it in windows image viewer?
