Birbla

Join the discussion

Write your take first — we'll ask for email only when you're ready to publish.

Sign in
  • Hacker News
  • Drat! I hoped this was going to cover the internal battle where Google executives trying to stop JPEG XL and how engineers finally convinced them to change their minds.

    My guess: the engineers didn’t win the argument. The executives just gave up once all the other browsers had added support.

    by YesThatTom2
  • One downside is that you cannot tell if format lossy or lossless by looking at its extension.
    by tepmoc
  • The tortoises have somehow outrun the hare because Safari still hasn't turned on progressive loading in libjxl (which had this feature since before Safari added the feature), while FF (non Android) and Chrome shipped with it enabled. The 3 year long chess clock is now flipped.
    by cyberrock
  • Every time a new image format comes out, I think about the compatibility crisis between apps.

    E.g. Telegram still doesn't have sane support for .webp, it treats them as stickers. MacOS can take a long time to update with support for new formats. Image viewer apps even longer, many never updating to support new formats.

    by kelseydh
  • Glad to see it happen. I'd prefer it there was just one format rather than both jxl and avif, but at least it's the final nail in the coffin of webp which seems to have accomplished little but annoy people for not much gain.

    The wider ecosystem support is still far from commonplace, but it is slowly changing. iOS 18 wouldn't work with .jxl in Photos, but 27 does. Similarly, quick look and preview works fine on MacOS 27, thumbnails show up properly etc. I also found no issues with .jxl on linux, and image editors are slowly adding support as well.

    Plain old jpg will still be everywhere for the next decade, but I'm glad that we finally have superior options with no real downsides, and without all the patent bullshit to boot.

    by revolvingthrow
  • See previous HN discussions for context:

    Google set to deprecate JPEG XL support in Chrome 110 - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33399940

    JPEG XL support has officially been removed from Chromium - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33933208

    Chrome Jpegxl Issue Reopened - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46033330

    The case agains JPEG XL - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49690554

    by swiftcoder
  • It's exciting to see JXL support being re-added in Chrome after being removed a while ago and them seemingly not being interested in supporting it [1].

    I think JXL is a cool image format, but was being held back by the most popular browser not supporting it, limiting its use (in the web especially) by a lot.

    [1]: https://issues.chromium.org/issues/40270698

    by xx_ns
  • And soon Firefox will include it in Stable. During October it will go from Safari only to majority coverage. Eventful month!

    While AVIF may have a slight edge in some cases like in fairly lossy compression, you won't really go _wrong_ with JPEG XL (unless strongly CPU constrained) and I think the strength of the format is its extreme versatility as a "be all end all image format" for some time where comparative performance depending on functionality ranges from respectable to excellent. It can work as a replacement for AVIF, PNG, JPEG, WebP, even certain TIFF required scenarios (high bit depth, multichannel, layers) depending on use cases.

    by jug

Explore Birbla archives