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.
- So… your solution is to stick with extremely dated and objectively bad file formats? You using Windows 95?
- All the cool kids use .HEIF anyway
- Forgive my ignorance, but isn't this like complaining that a PlayStation 2 can't play PS5 games?
- 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).
- 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?
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.
- its royalty free and has an open source implementation, what more could you want?
- JPEG-XL is in no way patent encumbered. Neither is AVIF. I don't know what you're talking about
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
Does jpegxl work on firefox?
- Only in Nightly and not by default (you need to enable it).
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.

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.

AnD tHaTs A bAd ThInG

😒

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.
JPEG2000 is still used in movie theaters.
Yeah but it wasn't free, right?

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

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.

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?)

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.