It's not just Google, Mozilla has no desire to introduce a barely supported massive C++ decoder for marginal gains either:<p><a href="https://github.com/mozilla/standards-positions/pull/1064" rel="nofollow">https://github.com/mozilla/standards-positions/pull/1064</a><p>avif is just better for typical web image quality, it produces better looking images and its artifacts aren't as annoying (smoothing instead of blocking and ringing around sharp edges).<p>You also get it for basically free because it's just an av1 key frame. Every browser needs an av1 decoder already unless it's willing to forego users who would like to be able to watch Netflix and YouTube.
I don't understand what you're trying to say. Mozilla said over a year ago that they would support JXL as soon as there's a fast memory safe decoder that will be supported.<p>Google on the other hand never expressed any desire to support JXL at all, regardless of the implementation. Only just now after the PDF Association announced that PDF would be using JXL, did they decide to support JXL on the web.<p>> avif is just better for typical web image quality, it produces better looking images and its artifacts aren't as annoying (smoothing instead of blocking and ringing around sharp edges).<p>AVIF is certainly better for the level of quality that Google wants you to use, but in reality, images on the web are much higher quality than that.<p>And JXL is pretty good if you want smoothing, in fact libjxl's defaults have gotten so overly smooth recently that it's considered a problem which they're in the process of fixing.
> I don't understand what you're trying to say. Mozilla said over a year ago that they would support JXL as soon as there's a fast memory safe decoder that will be supported.<p>Did they actually say that? All the statements i've seen them have been much more guarded and vauge. More of a, maybe we will think about it if that happens.
> If they successfully contribute an implementation that satisfies these properties and meets our normal production requirements, we would ship it.<p>That's what they said a year ago. And a couple of Mozilla devs have been in regular contact with the JXL devs ever since then, helping with the integration. The patches to use jxl-rs with Firefox already exist, and will be merged as soon as a couple of prerequisite issues in Gecko are fixed.
Their standards position is still neutral; what switched a year ago was that they said they would be <i>open</i> to shipping an implementation that met their requirements. The tracking bug hasn't been updated[2] The patches you mention are still part of the intent to prototype (behind a flag), similar to the earlier implementation that was removed in Chrome.<p>They're looking at the same signals as Chrome of a format that's actually getting use, has a memory safe implementation, and that will stick around for decades to justify adding it to the web platform, all of which seem more and more positive since 2022.<p>[1] <a href="https://mozilla.github.io/standards-positions/#jpegxl" rel="nofollow">https://mozilla.github.io/standards-positions/#jpegxl</a><p>[2] <a href="https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1539075" rel="nofollow">https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1539075</a>
I disagree about the image quality at typical sizes - I find JPEG-XL is generally similar or better than AVIF at any reasonable compression ratios for web images. See this for example: <a href="https://tonisagrista.com/blog/2023/jpegxl-vs-avif/" rel="nofollow">https://tonisagrista.com/blog/2023/jpegxl-vs-avif/</a><p>AVIF only comes out as superior at extreme compression ratios at much lower bit rates than are typically used for web images, and the images generally look like smothered messes at those extreme ratios.
Even though AVIF decoding support is fairly widespread by now, it is still not ubiquitous like JPEG/PNG/GIF. So typically services will store or generate the same image in multiple formats including AVIF for bandwidth optimization and JPEG for universal client support. Browser headers help to determine compatibility, but it's still fairly complicated to implement, and users also end up having to deal with different platforms supporting different formats when they are served WebP or AVIF and want to reupload an image somewhere else that does not like those formats. As far as I can tell, JXL solves that issue for most websites since it is backwards-compatible and can be decoded into JPEG when a client does not support JXL. I would happily give up a few percent in compression efficiency to get back to a single all-purpose lossy image format.
Not everything in the world is passive end-of-the-line presentation. JPEG-XL is the only one that tries to be a general-purpose image format.
If that's the case, let it be a feature of image editing packages that can output formats that are for the web. It's a web standard we're talking about here, not a general-purpose image format, so asking browsers to carry that big code load seems unreasonable when existing formats do most of what we need and want <i>for the web.</i>
People generally expect browsers to display general-purpose image formats. It's why they support formats like classical JPEG, instead of just GIF and PNG.<p>Turns out people <i>really</i> like being able to just drag-and-drop an image from their camera into a website - being forced to re-encode first it isn't exactly popular.
The killer feature of JXL is that most websites already have a whole bunch of images in JPEG format, and converting those to JXL shrinks them by about 30% without introducing any new artifacts.
"Marginal Gains"<p>Generation Loss – JPEG, WebP, JPEG XL, AVIF
: <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w7UDJUCMTng" rel="nofollow">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w7UDJUCMTng</a>
> Mozilla has no desire to introduce a barely supported massive C++ decoder for marginal gains<p>On a slightly related note, I wanted to have a HDR background image in Windows 11. Should be a breeze in 2025 right?<p>Well, Windows 11 only supports JPEG XR[1] for HDR background images. And my commonly used tools did either not support JPEG XR (Gimp fex) or they did not work correctly (ImageMagick).<p>So I had a look at the JPEG XR reference implementation, which was hosted on Codeplex but has been mirrored on GitHub[2]. And boy, I sure hope that isn't the code that lives in Windows 11...<p>Ok most of the gunk is in the encoder/decoder wrapper code, but still, for something that's supposedly still in active use by Microsoft... Though not even hosting their own copy of the reference implementation is telling enough I suppose.<p>[1]: <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JPEG_XR" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JPEG_XR</a><p>[2]: <a href="https://github.com/4creators/jxrlib" rel="nofollow">https://github.com/4creators/jxrlib</a>
>avif is just better for typical web image quality,<p>What does "typical web image quality" even mean? I see lots of benchmarks with very low BPPs, like 0.5 or even lower, and that's where video-based image codecs shine.<p>However, I just visited CNN.com and these are the BPPs of the first 10 images my browser loaded: 1.40, 2.29, 1.88, 18.03 (PNG "CNN headlines" logo), 1.19, 2.01, 2.21, 2.32, 1.14, 2.45.<p>I believe people are underestimating the BPP values that are actually used on the web. I'm not saying that low-BPP images don't exist, but clearly it isn't hard to find examples of higher-quality images in the wild.
Can AVIF display 10 bit HDR with larger color gamut that any modern phone nowadays is capable of capturing?
> <i>Can AVIF display 10 bit HDR with larger color gamut that any modern phone nowadays is capable of capturing?</i><p>Sure, 12-bit too, with HDR transfer functions (PQ and HLG), wide-gamut primaries (BT.2020, P3, etc.), and high-dynamic-range metadata (ITU/CTA mastering metadata, content light level metadata).<p>JPEG XL matches or exceeds these capabilities on paper, but not in practice. The reality is that the world is going to support the JPEG XL capabilities that Apple supports, and probably not much more.
if you actually read your parent comment: "typical web image quality"