• AdrianTheFrog@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    3 days ago

    Yes, and webp lossless is really good. JXL lossless is usually better, but either are better than png.

    Random high quality jpeg I found of a screenshot of sheet music:

    Original: 53.3 kb

    JXL: 12.2 kb

    Webp: 25.9 kb

    AVIF: 22.6 kb

    PNG: 47.3 kb

    Most are not anywhere near as favorable, that happened to be the most recent thing in my camera roll. Let me try another:

    Original PNG: 19.0 kb

    JXL: 12.9 kb

    Webp: 15.7 kb

    AVIF: 14.9 kb

    Finally, some larger and photographic content:

    Original PNG: 318 kb

    JXL: 185 kb

    Webp: 247 kb

    AVIF: 201 kb

    Encoder efforts picked to be the highest that would finish in within a few seconds in Image Toolbox on my phone. Webp doesn’t go up as high so it was finishing quicker here, and PNG doesn’t have varying effort afaik

    BTW JXL effort 1 lossless is insanely fast to encode (the order of a gigapixel per second) and also basically always smaller than PNG

    • michael_palmer@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      3 days ago

      It’s funny that Google is one of the developers of the JPEG XL format, but neither Chrome nor Android support this format.

      P.S. funny thing №2: title image on jpeg-xl homepage is AVIF.

      • AdrianTheFrog@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        3 days ago

        Makes sense though, since it is the best image format that is actually supported. Probably the best overall outside of lossless now with tune=iq, idk about AV2, h265, or h266 tho.

        The thing is, JXL has a lot of un-exploited potential for better encoding tools within the same codec, mostly from the fact that it has like 5 part time devs compared to the multi-company teams that AOM has.