• reddig33@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    What is the point of this format? How is it any better than png or webp? Do we really need yet another format? I mean 44k really isn’t that great of a savings in the example used.

    • Yote.zip@pawb.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      A shortlist:

      • it has the best lossy image compression (not counting extremely low bitrate images, where AVIF starts to win)
      • it can losslessly recompress JPEGs for a free 20% space savings - no image quality loss
      • it supports parallel decoding for extra speed
      • it supports progressive decoding (viewing a lower quality version of the image while it loads), unlike WebP/AVIF which just “pop up” when you’ve downloaded the whole thing
      • it supports lossless
      • it compresses lossless extremely well (notably unlike AVIF and PNG which fall on their face with lossless compression)
      • it supports animation (though AVIF is generally a better format for animation, because it’s based on a proper video codec)
      • it supports HDR
      • it has a very strong resilience against generation loss (the classic “JPEG degradation” of resaving images)
      • it is royalty-free
      • it otherwise has roughly every image format feature we’ve ever thought of included in its spec

      If JXL is not the next image format then we will never ever get rid of JPEG and PNG. There has never been a more obviously superior image format in history.

      This might help: Image format comparison table

      Comparison table showing various image formats and their attributes