JPEG is Dying - And that's a bad thing

TL:DW, JPEG is getting old in the tooth, which prompted the creation of JPEG XL, which is a fairly future-proof new compression standard that can compress images to the same file size or smaller than regular JPEG while having massively higher quality.
However, JPEG XL support was removed from Google Chrome based browsers in favor of AVIF, a standalone image compression derived from the AV1 video compression codec that is decidedly not future-proof, having some hard-coded limitations, as well as missing some very nice to have features that JPEG XL offers such as progressive image loading and lower hardware requirements. The result of this is that JPEG XL adoption will be severely hamstrung by Google’s decision, which is ultimately pretty lame.
- This is why Google keeps getting caught up in monopoly lawsuits.
  
  Modern Google is becoming the Microsoft of the 90s
- I tried JPEG XL and it didn’t even make my files extra large. It actually made them SMALLER.
  False advertising.
  
  I think you took the wrong enlargement pill.
- Jpeg XL isn’t backwards compatible with existing JPEG renderers. If it was, it’d be a winner. We already have PNG and JPG and now we’ve got people using the annoying webP. Adding another format that requires new decoder support isn’t going to help.
  
  "the annoying webp" AFAIK is the same problem as JPEG XL, apps just didn't implement it.
  It is supported in browsers, which is good, but not in third party apps. AVIF or whatever is going to have the same problem.
  
  Jpeg XL isn’t backwards compatible with existing JPEG renderers. If it was, it’d be a winner.
  According to the video, and this article, JPEG XL is backwards compatible with JPEG.
  But I'm not sure if that's all that necessary. JPEG XL was designed to be a full, long term replacement to JPEG. Old JPEG's compression is very lossy, while JPEG XL, with the same amount of computational power, speed, and size, outclasses it entirely. PNG is lossless, and thus is not comparable since the file size is so much larger.
  JPEG XL, at least from what I'm seeing, does appear to be the best full replacement for JPEG (and it's not like they can't co-exist).
  
  My understanding is that webp isn't actually all that bad from a technical perspective, it was just annoying because it started getting used widely on the web before all the various tools caught up and implemented support for it.
  
  I just wish more software would support webp files. I remember Reddit converting every image to webp to save on space and bandwidth (smart, imo) but not allowing you to directly upload webp files in posts because it wasn't a supported file format.
  If webp was just more standardized, I'd love to use it more. It would certainly save me a ton of storage space.
  
  So… your solution is to stick with extremely dated and objectively bad file formats? You using Windows 95?
  
  Forgive my ignorance, but isn't this like complaining that a PlayStation 2 can't play PS5 games?
  
  All the cool kids use .HEIF anyway
  
  Isn't that the same as other newer formats though?
  There's always something new, and if the new thing is better, adding/switching to it is the better move.
  Or am I missing something about the other formats like webp?
  
  You can't add new and better stuff while staying compatible with the old stuff. Especially not when your goal is compact files (or you'd just embed the old format).
- Look it's all actually about re-encumberancing image file formats back into corporate controlled patented formats. If we would collectively just spend time and money and development resources expanding and improving PNG and gif formats that are no longer patent encumbered, we'd all live happily ever after.
  
  JPEG-XL is in no way patent encumbered. Neither is AVIF. I don't know what you're talking about
  
  its royalty free and has an open source implementation, what more could you want?
- Why was it not included? AVIF creator influence bias. It's a good story.
- Google's handling of jxl makes a lot more sense after the jpegli announcement. It's apparent now that they declined to support jxl in favor of cloning many of jxl's features in a format they control.
- Why wasn't PNG enough to replace jpeg?
  
  PNG is a lossless format, and hence results in fairly large file sized compared to compressed formats, so they're solving different issues.
  JPEG XL is capable of being either lossy or lossless, so it sorta replaces both JPEG and PNG
  
  not enough elitists
- And JPEG2000 is what's used in Digital Cinema Package (DCP) - that's the file format used to distribute feature films. That's not going away soon.
- Does jpegxl work on firefox?
  
  Only in Nightly and not by default (you need to enable it).

Without jpeg compression artifacts how the hell are we supposed to know which memes are fresh and which memes are vintage???
- I still think it's bullshit that 20-year-old photos now look the same as 20-second-old photos. Young people out there with baby pictures that look like they were taken yesterday.
  
  We need a file format that degrades into black and white over time.
- lol nice one. It’s shocking how far we’ve come in quality.

Pretty much sums it up. JPEGXL could've been the standard by now if Google would stop kneecapping it in favor of its own tech, now we're stuck in an awkward position where neither of them are getting as much traction because nobody can decide on which to focus on.
Also, while Safari does support AVIF, there are some features it doesn't support like moving images, so we have to wait on that too... AVIF isn't bad, but it doesn't matter if it takes another 5+ years to get global support for a new image format...

People are quick to blame Google for the slow uptake of Jpeg XL, but I don't think that can be the whole story. Lots of other vendors, including non-commercial free software projects, have also been slow to support it. Gimp for example still only supports it via a plugin.
But if it's not just a matter of Google being assholes, what's the actual issue with Jpeg XL uptake? No clue, does anyone know?
- GIMP supports JPEG XL natively in 3.0 development versions. If I remember correctly GIMP 2.10 was released before JPEG-XL was ready, so I think that's the reason. They could have added support in smaller update though, which was the case with AVIF.
- Lots of other vendors, including non-commercial free software projects, have also been slow to support it.
  checks
  It doesn't look like the Lemmy Web UI supports JPEG XL uploads, for one.
  
  Imgur doesn’t let me upload it either, I have to use general file hosts
- The issue with jpegxl is that in reality jpeg is fine for 99% of images on the internet.
  If you need lossless, you can have PNG.
  "But JPEGXL can save 0,18mb in compression!" Shut up nerd everyone has broadband it doesn't matter
  
  What a dumb comment.
  All of that adds up when you have thousands or tens of thousands of images. Or even when you're just loading a very media-heavy website.
  The compression used by JPEG-XL is very, very good. As is the decoding/encoding performance, both in single core and in multi-core applications.
  It's royalty free. Supports animation. Supports transparency. Supports layers. Supports HDR. Supports a bit depth of 32 compared to, what, 8?
  JPEG-XL is what we should be striving for.
  
  That 0.18mb accumulates quickly on the server's side if you have 10000 people trying to access that image at the same time. And there are millions it not billions of images on the net. Just because we have the resources doesn't mean we should squander them..that's how you end up with chat apps taking multiple gigabytes of RAM.
  
  “I’m very small minded and am not important or smart enough to have ever worked on a large-scale project in my life, but I will assume my lack of experience has earned me a sense of authority” -Redisdead
  
  While AVIF saves about 2/3 in my manga downloads (usually jpg). 10 GB to 3 GB. Btw, most comicbook apps support avif.
  
  Check how large your photos library is on your computer. Now wouldn't it be nice if it was 40% smaller?
  
  It’s competing with webp and it helps prevent jpg artifacts when downloaded multiple times

Nobody remember JPEG2000 ?!?
- "In the year two thouuusaaaaaannd, in the year two thouuusaaaaaannd"
- Jpeg2000 was patent encumbered. They waived the patents but that wasn't guaranteed going forward.
- Yeah but it wasn't free, right?
- JPEG2000 is still used in movie theaters.

AnD tHaTs A bAd ThInG
😒

Wasn't there a licensing issue with jpeg xl for using Microsoft's some sort of algo?
- Makes sense why AV1F isn't supported in Windows. Likely a corrupt Microsoft backroom deal with proprietary algorithms makers.
  
  there's AVIF and AV1 extensions by Microsoft itself on their store afaik…
- No, there aren't any licensing issues with JPEG-XL.
  
  Then it's absolutely soul-crushing to see Google abuse it's market dominance like that...

bring back bmp and tiff cowards
- Oof, BMP. I remember those days..
- PCX or nothin'
  
  I liked TARGA, personally...

I'll just revert to .IFF

do I look like I know what a jay peg is?

There were 14 competing standards.
There are now 13 competing standards.
And that's fine by me.

as a .png elitist i see this as a good thing.
- As an EXR elitist I deeply resent Google's blatant sabotage of JXL.
  (And also laugh at the PNG elitists, as is custom.)

Is chrome modular enough to make it feasible for Edge and other Chrome based browsers to add support for jpegxl themselves?

TLDR how is that bad?
- There should be a tl:DW in the comments here.

WHY IS NO ONE STANDING UP FOR GIF?!
- I don't know, because it sucks and has zero benefits over PNG?
  
  Probably the least relevant benefit of APNG over GIF: Unlike GIF, I can even pronounce APNG with a soft G and not feel gross about it. (Like I’m betraying the peanut butter brand and my entire moral framework at the same time, y’know?)
  
  Especially after animated pngs were developed but nobody wanted to support those so we're stuck with gifs that are actually mp4s or webms.
  
  Strictly-speaking, last time I took a serious look at this, which was quite some years back, it was possible to make very small GIFs that were smaller than very small PNGs.
  That used to be more significant back when "web bugs" -- one-pixel, transparent images -- were a popular mechanism to try to track users. I don't know if that's still a popular tactic these days.