Post

Hassling our image person with this info (they will not be pleased as JPEG XL did nicely on most tests) 🤣

Curious to know what they were testing!

The CDN is used for content teams who use non transparent images at large(r) sizes. From what I know we found a cutoff at certain sizes where avif wins, mostly in compute times. It is probably using libjxl but i can't be certain. Will hook you up with the people if you want more details 👌

Would you mind giving some arguments for your take "Animated image formats are dumb" ; i was surprised to see none in the article, but maybe i missed it.

Like I said in the article, they don't add anything that videos don't (except transparency in AVIF, but that's because AV1 was dumb not to add support). They play like shit, and with the exception of AVIF, their file sizes are baaaaad.

GIF culture is still popular and I find it weird to use video for a 2 frame infinite loop. I trust you when you say current formats are bad for this, but it seemed like your opinion was less empirical, that you didnt like the idea of an animated image format no matter how good it is

I'm pretty excited for lossless jxl. Honestly the encoders kinda suck. Been working on something for a bit that I may share at some point but TLDR; here's a lossless encoding of the cat image on the blog at 178kb (down ~30% from the 255kb) www.linolevan.com/06-illustrat...

What setting did you use to get that?

It takes my breath away how good these encoders are. I had to zoom in very far to notice any difference whatsoever while moving this slider.

Okay, “use AVIF” is what I’ve taken away from that. Good stuff, as always sir.

I'm so confused this is the opposite of everything we were hearing about JPEG-XL on recent years, like at the time when Google canned it over a patent spat with Microsoft is everything here outdated? jpegxl.info what happened? did AVIF suddenly go way beyond it's initial benchmarks? 🤷‍♂️

I've been calling out misinformation on JPEG XL for years. Google didn't can it. They've been actively funding it. Many of the most active contributors to JPEG XL work at Google. The "Google is trying to silence JPEG XL" thing was pure conspiracy theory.

really? but I saw the issue where Chromium maintainers removed it and closed it I don't remember the reason that was given, but I distinctly remember it being obviously bs and then the patent that both Google and Microsoft tried to snatch up you think that was all bs? 🤔

I love the 2010s YouTube thumbnail style og:image. Great post, as always. I'm going to have to reevaluate a lot of my JPEG XL understanding, as a lot has changed in recent years.

The JPEG XL images mostly seem better to me at 60-80% quality levels. It just seems smarter about what detail it is preserving like inside the race car cockpit, the glasses outline and the eyes, or the red panda's eyes and nose texture.