Yeah. Here is a surprisingly readable article on all the supported features and design decisions of JPEG XL:
https://arxiv.org/abs/2506.05987
replyThe format is designed to be as general as possible, potentially replacing many common (JPEG, GIF, PNG) and professional image formats.
For example, JPEG XL supports pages (e.g. for comic books), layers (with variable frame sizes, positions and blend modes) and timed animations.
I wish they had kept the support for progressive decoding of animations just like FLIF had but I guess they had to draw the complexity line somewhere.
replyThat was indeed surprisingly readable and very in-depth at the same time. Thanks for sharing!
replyHow about AVIF?
replyI have not read that many direct comparisons here.
In my experience, it's competitive on output size but not on compression speed. If you're not compressing online then that's fine, but we're running a service that resizes and recompresses on the fly. We serve JXL if the client indicates support for it, JPEG using JXL's jpegli, WebP, or PNG, depending on various factors.
replyMuch worse at lossless at least.
replyDepends on who you listen to, or what you test it on. It goes either way, and avif is typically significantly better at small files sizes where loading speed (or saving data) is the priority.
replyDefinitely not with lossless. It consistently lose to JXL and WebP
replyOn lossless? No.
replyReally? The lossless comparisons I've seen has JXL winning over AVIF, do you have a link to the comparisons you've seen where AVIF wins in lossless?
reply