Firefox intent to ship: JPEG XL(groups.google.com)
41 pointsby cpeterso5 hours ago8 comments
  • cpeterso5 hours ago
    And Chromium intent to Ship: JPEG XL decoding support (image/jxl) in blink

    https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/g/blink-dev/c/-gDoj...

  • jaffathecake5 hours ago
    Some background on this, and demos of JPEG XL's progressive rendering: https://hacks.mozilla.org/2026/08/intent-to-ship-jpeg-xl/
    • heresie-dabord4 hours ago
      Key points (from TFA):

      = = =

          The image [...] is a 116 kB AVIF with a quality score (SSIMULACRA 2) of 62.8, meaning medium-high quality. To get the same quality, the JPEG XL image would be 134 kB.

    At a SSIMULACRA 2 score of 80 (very high quality), the AVIF is 227 kB, and the JPEG XL is 264 kB.

    But at lossless, the AVIF is 1.76 MB, and the JPEG XL is 1.45 MB. A lossless WebP is 1.55 MB.


    At a SSIMULACRA 2 score of 78 (very high quality), the AVIF is 11.6 kB, and the JPEG XL is 23.8 kB.

    But at lossless, the AVIF is 164 kB, and the JPEG XL is 92 kB. A lossless WebP is 96 kB.

    Although AVIF tends to produce smaller files at web-quality than JPEG XL, AVIF only has basic progressive rendering support. So, for very large images, it may be worth taking the filesize hit with JPEG XL.
      = = =
  • ChoosesBarbecue5 hours ago
    For all the furore, I think the best outcome happened here. Both browsers used their weight to get a memory-safe implementation out, and now we can all benefit from a new file format with a significantly reduced attack surface.
    • zamadatixan hour ago
      Agreed. Much thanks to Mozilla for taking the wildly unpopular decision to shoot the early proposal down as well instead of supporting it just because it'd make people more mad at Chrome.
    • culi5 hours ago
      Agreed. It's been hard to watch how much vitriol was pointed at Mozilla for their reasonable position. The C++ decoder was simply unsafe and they would not implement it until a memory-safe decoder was available.

      Imagine if the fanatics got what they wanted immediately and then major vulnerabilities were introduced and there was a huge backlash against JXL. It could have set things back way more

  • jl65 hours ago
    Great outcome, and I hope the weight of mainstream browser support will spur camera and phone manufacturers to emit native JXLs from their devices.
    • Ohentis28 minutes ago
      We've been here before. Jpeg and PNG are "good enough" and consumers aren't going to get behind anything that is slightly less convenient.
    • culi4 hours ago
      smartphones, computers, and TVs also dedicated hardware acceleration for AVIF video. Decoding an AVIF image uses virtually no battery/CPU power. It will require mass adoption to convince hardware makers to dedicate chips for decoding. especially with AVIF2 on the horizon
      • Scaevolus4 hours ago
        Chrome doesn't use hardware acceleration for decoding any image codecs-- not for JPEG or WebP or AVIF. It has some code for it (using VA-API), but it's disabled by default. Hardware video decoders are generally hard to use for image decoding tasks.

        Safari appears to be the only shipping browser using hardware decoding for JPEG and HEIF (HEVC based images). This is probably because vertical integration lets them make the decoders appropriate for image use.

        Also, "AVIF video" is incorrect. AVIF is the image codec based on AV1 intra frames.

  • ComputerGuru5 hours ago
    I'm a fan of JpegXL and happy to see support finally begin to coalesce around it on the browser scene, but I was wondering if anyone knew what goes into the decision of whether or not to consider adding encode support, e.g. via offscreenCanvas.convertToBlob() or whatever. How did browsers (minus Safari, of course) end up deciding to add support for WebP encode in addition to JPEG and PNG?
    • jaffathecake5 hours ago
      It often comes down to compat, and developer requests. Personally I find in-browser encoding for images inadequate, because it doesn't expose enough options. When we built https://squoosh.app/, we exposed the browser encoders for completeness, but they're pretty bad compared to the wasm codecs.
      • zamadatixan hour ago
        I love squoosh.app! Thanks so much for making that.
      • ComputerGuru4 hours ago
        I love your editor/comparison tool. Would you be open to adding browser WebP?

        Is the JpegXL lossless options the "transparent JPEG recompression" or the actual lossless profile? I'm presuming the latter because it more than doubled the image size.

        • jaffathecake29 minutes ago
          Yeah it's the latter. I'm going to look into adding transcoding, but Squoosh is currently set up to pass a bitmap to the encoder rather than the original image, because the original image can be processed first.
  • mchusma4 hours ago
    I am excited for this! A great practical format.

    I love progressive rendering. At 15% loaded in this example it’s surprisingly good already.

  • 4 hours ago
    undefined
  • tristor4 hours ago
    Nice. I hope we'll see more support for jxl across the web. It's so good at this point that it's my primary output/archival format for all of my photography.