Oh, that explains! I tried AVIF and JXL a few years ago and one of the two took ages to encode (a minute versus <1s for jpeg) to get similar compression ratios, and the other was somewhat reasonable on cpu complexity but significantly worse quality at the same size / much bigger to achieve the same quality as good old jpeg. I ended up concluding that jpeg is still the best for the specific image I was trying to lossily compress, but that was probably just the encoder then
replyHappy to see your version of the cat illustration doesn't come with massive decoder overhead. Are you planning to open source this encoder?
replyIt's just a side project I'm working on with some friends. May release it if it's interesting to folks.
replyI would love to try it out.
replyI'll post it to bsky/HN at some point in the future!
replyThank You. I was about to post I suspect both of those images would have worked better with JXL lossless.
replyCurious what is the better encoder here referring to?
It's an unreleased one. There's a whole section in the article about lossless, which includes data on those images, but not this mystery unreleased encoder https://jakearchibald.com/2026/jpeg-xl-vs-avif/#lossless
replyYeah, it's very cool that jixel was able to achieve such large efficiency improvements!
reply