←back to thread

The JPEG XL Image Coding History, Features, Coding Tools, Design Rationale

(arxiv.org)
94 points ksec | 1 comments | 13 Jul 25 05:05 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
ekunazanu ◴[15 Jul 25 11:29 UTC] No.44570052[source]▶
JPEG XL had so much going for it. Kinda sad it was killed off just like that.
replies(7): >>44570077 #>>44570161 #>>44570521 #>>44570580 #>>44570956 #>>44572410 #>>44575108 #
donatzsky ◴[15 Jul 25 13:30 UTC] No.44570956[source]▶
It wasn't killed off. Support was removed from Chrome, for what appears to be rather spurious reasons, but practically everyone else are busy implementing it.
replies(2): >>44572511 #>>44581570 #
jandrese ◴[15 Jul 25 15:57 UTC] No.44572511[source]▶
Sadly removing support from Chrome is effectively the same as killing it off. And the reason is Google wants people to use webp instead.
replies(2): >>44573507 #>>44574821 #
greenavocado ◴[15 Jul 25 17:14 UTC] No.44573507[source]▶
Friendly reminder that WebP is trash https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w7UDJUCMTng
replies(1): >>44574100 #
can16358p ◴[15 Jul 25 18:06 UTC] No.44574100[source]▶
While I'm not the biggest fan of WebP, using generation loss as a metric wouldn't be an indicator of a real world scenario. I can't think of any actual instance where an image needs to be re-encoded, say, 10 times, let alone 100+ times.
replies(1): >>44574240 #
1. greenavocado ◴[15 Jul 25 18:17 UTC] No.44574240[source]▶
What do you think happens to images shared and re-shared between people online?