>Added to Safari a year ago. >Still not adopted by the rest of the industry

>Added to Safari a year ago
>Still not adopted by the rest of the industry

What the frick bros, I thought it was saved. Why is Google so tenacious?

Homeless People Are Sexy Shirt $21.68

Black Rifle Cuck Company, Conservative Humor Shirt $21.68

Homeless People Are Sexy Shirt $21.68

  1. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I heard there's problems with patents

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Trust me, you're not going to like JPEG XXL

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      There aren't. Lazily copy and pasting my response from the last few times I've seen people mention this.
      >"AFAIK there's something wrong with jpeg xl patents right now. Once that gets resolved we should see browsers add support for it, maybe."
      >There isn't, although there were concerns raised back in 2022. Microsoft has a patent on something relating to rANS, but it's about dynamically updating its probability distributions in the middle of decoding, which JPEG-XL does not do (these probabilities are completely static). Moreover, the relevant parts of JPEG-XL that people were concerned about to begin with predate the first filing of the MS patent, and MS themselves have never made any indication that they think otherwise.
      >I haven't heard anything from anyone even vaguely serious relating to it in at least a year but you still get the occasional FUD from some "concerned citizen" about how MS is going to frick everything up.

  2. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Still not adopted
    It was already added to Chrome and Firefox years ago and then got removed again because it's not that great in real scenarios and a certain other image format just buttfricks it in every category. Why can't you homosexual just accept your lose and move on?

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous
      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >10 BPP
        Oh boy I can't wait to upload 10MB 4K jpeg xl losssless images everywhere.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >8-bit
          dumb moron

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I'm talking about file size. 9gag already crushes images to around 1BPP with webp lossy. The web isn't going to use 10BPP on anything especially as screen resolution keeps going up.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous
          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Now that's more fair. Still you have animation to consider, see

            oof

            jpeg xl wouldn't get rid of GIF unfortunately.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >image codec is not good for encoding video
            wow, what a shocker. dumb moron.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >gifs are not images
            ok tard

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >jpeg xl wouldn't get rid of GIF unfortunately.
            Anon, JPEG XL is the ONLY format that can get rid of GIF.
            This gif here can be reduced to a 333kiB JXL with lossless encoding, meaning it's theoretically reversible. good luck doing that with AVIF.

            This goes well along with JXL's ability to completely supersede PNG and JPG. You can convert them back and forth with no loss.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >you VILL buy ze 2k phone to view my animated shit image

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >JPEG XL is the ONLY format that can get rid of GIF
            idk senpai, here's a comparison between 1.9MB AVIF and JXL, both taken from 192mb y4m
            https://files.catbox.moe/ab4st4.avif
            https://files.catbox.moe/dlwntm.jxl

            To get similar quality to the avif, you have to bloat the jxl up to 4mb. Unless im doing something wrong avif does seem to be better

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            A GIF replacement would have to do at least one of the following:
            1) losslessly convert existing GIFs while saving space
            2) provide a better format for animations for the web
            3) be usable as an animated video format to upload to services that don't support the formats in 2)

            JXL covers 1) much better than AVIF. AV1 and VP9 in WebM cover 2). Neither JXL or AVIF are applicable to 3); at best, you get APNG.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            seems to cover 2) just fine then, considering both AV1 and VP9 dont fully replace animations at all

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >both AV1 and VP9 dont fully replace animations at all
            Nonsense.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Neither does AVIF.
            A player is a feature, not a bug. hiromoot should ban animations in AVIF and JXL if they are to be added.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >jpeg xl wouldn't get rid of GIF unfortunately.
            anon, gif doesn't exist anymore
            webm replaced it

            The last time i made a gif was seven years ago.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >gif doesn't exist anymore
            The absolute state of israelitexlcucks
            >JewXL can't replace GIF
            >n-nobody uses GIF anyway

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            can't replace GIF
            >>n-nobody uses GIF anyway
            Both of those statements are factually true.
            If you used gif as little animation, jpegxl replaces it.
            If you use gif as 60 FPS short video

            >"nooo don't talk shit about how bloated 60 FPS animated jpeg xl files would be"

            then you should use a video format instead.

            Expecting from an image format to be good for storing videos is moronic.
            Similarly, it is moronic to expect from a video codec to be a good image format.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >suddenly moving goalpost

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous
      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Weird how these graphs always show the most unrealistic scenarios. The only one that is close to real life scenarios is the last graph which clearly shows just how much better AVIF is for real cases.

  3. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >be Daiz
    >be behind every JPEG XL shill post
    >shit up every thread to shill JPEG XL
    >been triggered ever since people looked into the archive which you didn't expect anyone to do

    Lol, lmao even

    Before he got called out:
    https://desuarchive.org/_/search/text/avif/end/2024-02-24/

    Getting called out:
    https://desuarchive.org/g/thread/99167108

    Aftermath:
    https://desuarchive.org/_/search/text/avif/start/2024-02-25/

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >AVIF shill is now a JXL shill
      Meds

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        He's too far gone. I think he was the same anon that would post that shit in every. single. AVIF thread. Not that Daiz wasn't annoying. He loved to start shit with the same arguments.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >Still not adopted by the rest of the industry
        uhmm sweaty, it's in Pale Moon

        >incoherent ramblings about daiz
        kek the fact that people still conspiracypost about him to this day will never stop to make me laugh
        post the bulletpoint list meme pls

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      He's too far gone. I think he was the same anon that would post that shit in every. single. AVIF thread. Not that Daiz wasn't annoying. He loved to start shit with the same arguments.

      This is daiz shamelessly samegayging. Something that he's used to doing because he's a narcissist and have been doing it for decades.

      He's so deranged and pissed off that he can't copy paste properly this post about him and edited it to confuse people.

      https://desuarchive.org/g/thread/100711039/#100718187

  4. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Why is Google so tenacious?
    webp is the pet project of some fricker at Google. They want to sabotage jxl as much as possible

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Anon I...

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Extend, Extinguish

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          They don't need to contribute to it and then add support in chrome to wienerblock it

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Extend, Extinguish

        Google just made a project that JPEG XL based itself on. The actual main developer is some B*lgian dude.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Google, the organization, is not against JPEG XL
        Hell, they just created jpegli which came largely from the improvements that JPEG XL introduces
        It's the frickers on the Chrome team specifically that are against JPEG XL and I believe it's someone on the Chrome team that created webp but their name escapes me right now

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          So basically, it's the same as it's always been
          Chrome is the new IE and is bad for internet standards

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Yes more specifically Google contributors to JXL are researchers from Google Switzerland.

          The ones trying to block JXL are the stereotypical google homosexuals.

  5. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    oof

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous
      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >"nooo don't talk shit about how bloated 60 FPS animated jpeg xl files would be"

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >Completely contrived use case
          That's just as moronic as berating AVIF for bloating up lossless encodes. The other anon rightfully got called out for that.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            see

            I'm talking about file size. 9gag already crushes images to around 1BPP with webp lossy. The web isn't going to use 10BPP on anything especially as screen resolution keeps going up.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >jpeg xl wouldn't get rid of GIF unfortunately.
          Anon, JPEG XL is the ONLY format that can get rid of GIF.
          This gif here can be reduced to a 333kiB JXL with lossless encoding, meaning it's theoretically reversible. Good luck doing that with AVIF.

          This goes well along with JXL's ability to completely supersede PNG and JPG. You can convert them back and forth with no loss.

          Now that's more fair. Still you have animation to consider, see [...]

          jpeg xl wouldn't get rid of GIF unfortunately.

          >using animated images in 2024
          AV1 webms with opus audio Blacks and JXL for 2D raster images.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I get blocky images when I encode anime with jpeg xl. Hard pass.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Don't care + skill issue.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >JPEG XL animated pictures, le bad
          >AVIF animated pictures, le... GOOD
          Images are supposed to be static.
          If you want animation, use a video.

          JPEG XL is better compared to AVIF.

          JPEG XL is better at:
          >lossless compression
          >lossy compression >1 bpp (which is 99% of pictures)
          >lossless recompressing of JPEGs (the most prevalent format, including all photos made by any phone/camera that's not the iphone)
          >web use because of progressive decoding
          >encoding speed

          AVIF is better at:
          >lossy compression <1 bpp (mostly irrelevant in the real world)
          >animations (as it's a video codec)

          So we can keep AVIF around for animations and thumbnails and JPEG XL for normal graphics and photos

          This.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        As always the one guy shilling his shit format can't even come up with his own meme and needs to steal it

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >Theft accusations on a viral meme template
          The irony.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Cope

  6. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Compressed file format
    >"XL"
    sorry man. you don't just need the algorithm. you need to have sense. the people at JPEG are disqualified

  7. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Vote
    https://poll-maker.com/poll5203590xf0944f75-157

  8. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous
  9. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    It is adopted by me.
    I converted all my pngs and jpgs to jpegxl and simply use librewolf and an extension that converts it to png when uploaded.
    Every single one of my applications supports jpegxl natively.

    You are free to suck the wiener of Google and use a video codec to store images.

  10. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    JPEG XL is better compared to AVIF.

    JPEG XL is better at:
    >lossless compression
    >lossy compression >1 bpp (which is 99% of pictures)
    >lossless recompressing of JPEGs (the most prevalent format, including all photos made by any phone/camera that's not the iphone)
    >web use because of progressive decoding
    >encoding speed

    AVIF is better at:
    >lossy compression <1 bpp (mostly irrelevant in the real world)
    >animations (as it's a video codec)

    So we can keep AVIF around for animations and thumbnails and JPEG XL for normal graphics and photos

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      JPEG XL is better at:
      >Production (flexible color management and image parameters)
      >Vectorization (inbuilt support for splines)

      AVIF is better at:
      >Decoding speed (HW support by all flagships)
      >Static video previews (AV1 keyframes)

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >Decoding speed (HW support by all flagships)
        This is a rabbit hole.
        You have to feed data into the hardware decoder, the process of doing this might come with so much overhead, that it could be faster to just software decode it.
        It is similar to image operations on the GPU. The decision whether or not you do it, depends on if juggling the data is worth it.

        I don't think that you will ever use hardware decoding for a 10KB thumbnail. Neither do i think that AVIF will be used for large 200MP photographs.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          What really matters is efficiency. Even if the speed is negated by overhead, a bunch of idle CPU's means little energy is consumed.
          I reckon that scrolling through social media goyslop with hundreds of thumbnails warrants care for battery life. Perfect use case for AVIF.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Has there been any benchmark that compares the impact of software vs hardware image decoding of small to medium sized images with different dimensions alongside the kind of usage that someone has in a web browser (i.e. a negligible portion of the total energy is spent on image decoding, compared to stuff like web rendering, scrolling, network and display)?

            In before
            >but it just FEELS like it has to be so!
            No, that's not a valid argument.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Nothing concrete AFAIK, but on the JPEG side of things, there's evidence of pure hardware decoders only ever needing one thread as compared to even hybrid solutions.
            One can make an educated guess based on that since you know the energy limit of a single thread as compared to a fully saturated CPU.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Irrelevant, since feeding a stream of frames with the same settings to an initialized decoder is quite far from how the Web operates.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            It does also do batch encoding, though.

            // Running nvJPEG decoder
            $ ./nvjpegDecoder -i ../input_images/ -o ~/tmp

            Decoding images in directory: ../input_images/, total 12, batchsize 1
            Processing: ../input_images/cat_baseline.jpg
            Image is 3 channels.
            Channel #0 size: 64 x 64
            Channel #1 size: 64 x 64
            Channel #2 size: 64 x 64
            YUV 4:4:4 chroma subsampling
            Done writing decoded image to file:/tmp/cat_baseline.bmp
            Processing: ../input_images/img8.jpg
            Image is 3 channels.
            Channel #0 size: 480 x 640
            Channel #1 size: 240 x 320
            Channel #2 size: 240 x 320
            YUV 4:2:0 chroma subsampling
            Done writing decoded image to file:/tmp/img8.bmp
            Processing: ../input_images/img5.jpg
            Image is 3 channels.
            Channel #0 size: 640 x 480
            Channel #1 size: 320 x 240
            Channel #2 size: 320 x 240

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            On my laptop, using this for web browsing would power up the discrete GPU and decimate my battery life. Much better to use software decoding.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            No it fricking wouldn't. The decoder is not a part of the GPU core.
            Besides, the GPU already does some work compositing the images on the screen, whether or not you hardware decode them.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >the GPU already does some work compositing the images on the screen
            No, my integrated GPU does that. Powering on the discrete Nvidia GPU will draw an extra ~10W even without extra load (e.g. by just repeatedly querying its state with nvidia-smi), roughly doubling the total power consumption of activities like web browsing.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I doubt that would even work. This specific tool is meant for production hardware. NVIDIA would be dumb for wasting silicon on that for consumer GPU's.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            How does this factor into the argument that using hardware JPEG decoding would end up with significant energy saving during web browsing?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Because ARM shit does have JPEG decoding.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Okay, where's any relevant tests of power usage in a scenario similar to web browsing, rather than playing back a MJPEG video?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >rather than playing back a MJPEG video?
            Missing the point. The fact is that it has dedicated silicon just like the hardware benchmarked in the prior post (which was done with batch images).

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Which has nothing to do with actually using it for a web browser. No arguments provided so far.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Using a test scenario involving decoding a batch og images with varying pixel formats and resolutions is completely unrelated to a real scenario involving having to decode multiple images with varying pixel formats and resolutions
            Wew.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >test scenario
            Whether hardware decoding such images was possible or not was not in question. The performance and energy impact of doing that instead of using software in a web browsing use profile is.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            It did provide insight into performance, though, and I already pointed out the basic inference regarding power usage before.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >It did provide insight into performance
            No, it did not. As I said before, continuously decoding a MJPEG video is a very different workload compared to decoding a dozen images of various parameters every few seconds.

            >I already pointed out the basic inference regarding power usage before
            Meaningless. See the above comment. Provide actually relevant benchmarks or the fact that no relevant web browser uses hardware image decoding in practice provides much stronger evidence that it's simply not worth doing.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Who said anything about MJPEG? NVIDIA also did tests using data sets of random JPEG images.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Again, this is merely a batch decode performance benchmark that may have little to do with actual web browsing (firing up the GPU decoder for a few images every few seconds, usually one image at a time as they finish downloading).
            I'm not sure how this exact Nvidia benchmark worked, but a quick web search suggests that ResNet50 requires images with dimensions 224x224. I don't know how relevant that is (e.g. if it required multiple decoder initializations or not).

            >or the fact that no relevant web browser uses hardware image decoding in practice
            There's this glaring proof that it's present in browsers.

            Read your own screenshot. They *disabled* the usage of image hardware acceleration in the *file picker* running inside the browser process. Moreover, it was only enabled by accident because they didn't think it would be.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >firing up the GPU decoder for a few images every few seconds
            Firing it up for a moment to complete its work is exactly what is done here, though.
            If you were to actually measure the power usage of this, you'd have to specifically run a synthetic test, since anything displayed on your screen would inevitably tax the actual GPU too, regardless of the decoder.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >or the fact that no relevant web browser uses hardware image decoding in practice
            There's this glaring proof that it's present in browsers.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >lossy compression <1 bpp (mostly irrelevant in the real world)
      >animations (as it's a video codec)

      AVIF only beats JXL at 0.4 bpp

      Show us what an image at 0.4 bpp looks like, you fricking moron. No one wants to be able to count the pixels in a picture

      >animations (as it's a video codec)

      You're literally moronic. Even the morons who made AVIF suggest using AV1 for animation

  11. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I remember back when PNG came out, Microsoft refused to add it to IE. Apple ended up adding PNG to Quicktime, so that it would install PNG support into IE as a plugin.

  12. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Is there a special name for simultaneous sockpuppeting and sealioning? It'd be nice to have a single concise term for describing this one asshat's anti-JXL crusade.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >one asshat's
      Nobody likes or wants JXL except big corpo

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >photography is big corpo now

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        I don't think I've ever seen as much grassroots support for a goddamn file format, built from people using it entirely for hobbyist shit, as JXL. I don't know how you can call it "big corpo" when it's free, open, consumer-friendly, and adoption is only held up by the one corp with a monopoly over the internet.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >much grassroots support
          All just few people spamming it everywhere. Weird how much "support" this format has but yet nothing supports it. Why does so much open source software support avif but not jxl? Why is avif supported as format on many websites but not jxl? Why don't the numerous supporters add support for it? Weird, isn't it?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >2304 stars on GitHub
            >+1128 on Chromium's bug tracker
            >870 kudos on Mozilla Connect
            >646 reactions for Interop
            >just few people spamming it everywhere

            >Weird, isn't it?
            Making shit up, and then rephrasing it as many ways as you can, doesn't mean you have the mountain of evidence that you seem to think you do. The simple and demonstrable reality is that users want to use JXL. AVIF, which you brought into the discussion for no apparent reason, has no significant user support. It is supported by a small handful of Chromium devs, who openly consult AVIF devs on which formats to support.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Why does so much open source software support avif
            head start from being three years older
            >Why is avif supported as format on many websites
            browser support
            >Why don't the numerous supporters add support for it?
            they are, a lot of apps are getting jxl support including chrome and firefox, it's just not being upstreamed there for political reasons

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >political reasons
            Are these political reasons in the room with us right now?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            google not wanting to push a competing format and mozilla playing it safe by largely following google wrt web standards are not technical reasons

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            The technical reason is that it's worse in real life scenarios compared to avif

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            if that was true, why wouldn't google have just said that instead of making up bogus claims like "not enough industry support"

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Why does so much open source software support avif but not jxl?
            Any example?
            Everything i have here supports jxl, without exception.
            I don't know if it supports AVIF, because i don't have a single one. I also don't see a reason why i would ever use AVIF.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >photography is big corpo now

          >2304 stars on GitHub
          >+1128 on Chromium's bug tracker
          >870 kudos on Mozilla Connect
          >646 reactions for Interop
          >just few people spamming it everywhere

          >Weird, isn't it?
          Making shit up, and then rephrasing it as many ways as you can, doesn't mean you have the mountain of evidence that you seem to think you do. The simple and demonstrable reality is that users want to use JXL. AVIF, which you brought into the discussion for no apparent reason, has no significant user support. It is supported by a small handful of Chromium devs, who openly consult AVIF devs on which formats to support.

          You're replying to Daiz who is a samegay, copyright/corporate defender despite bootstrapping off of property infringement, and a /misc/tard who tries to get chummy with LGBT and BLM on Twitter.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      maybe "pajeet"?

  13. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Despite AFIV being two years older than JPEG-XL and pushed hard by google.... how many times did you see one in the wild? Me: Never.

    When .webp came around, they first forced it by shipping different formats to browsers, depending on the support.
    AVIF isn't even worth doing that. Nobody gives a frick about that format, except some pajeet shilling it here.

    Many people care about jxl and even use it despite it being opposed by Google.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Pretty much every wiki (wikia), many blogspot and wordpress blogs, some company website and I saw an anime database use it. You probably have prefer webp over avif set in your browser if you never saw it.

  14. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Good. Let's hope it stays that way.
    We already got WebP and AVIF

  15. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Here's what Daiz spams when he attacks JXL (which he does to snare in newbies):
    - You're supposed to like AVIF because Google supports it
    - You're supposed to hate JXL because Apple supports it despite Google funding its development and Apple supporting AVIF
    - You're supposed to hate JXL because of a patent that has nothing to do with it
    - You're supposed to hate JXL because he claims Apple put malware in it
    - You're supposed to like AVIF because it reduces bandwidth and electrical costs and Google will make more money
    - You're a corporate bootlicker if you prefer JXL because it's faster, smaller and less resource demanding than AVIF
    - You're supposed to like AVIF because every video will be re-encoded to AV1 with a BPP that is five times lower than the average BPP, computing power is free, people like to count pixels and JXL doesn't have hardware acceleration
    - And you're mentally ill if you disagree

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *