Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by zamadatix 1105 days ago
Could you explain how so? JPEG XL seems cool enough but what about e.g. AVIF makes it "just a passive delivery format" instead of a general-purpose image format? It handles color spaces, lossless, lossy, up to 12 bit, up to 4:4:4/RGB, transparency, and animation at a good quality/size ratio so what's so drastically different about JPEG XL to move them to separate categories?
3 comments

I think 12-bit colour stops it being adopted for ‘master’ images intended for editing. The current top comment says that 16-bit depth is a requirement for radiology. Also, I've read that its lossless encoding is often very poor — larger than PNG.

(I didn't downvote, BTW; it's a reasonable question.)

AVIF does not support progressive encoding.
Assuming you meant "de"coding: it does, albeit I like JPEG XL's more. To me, that point seems an argument for things being the other way around anyways (i.e. general-purpose but not a good delivery format).
> Assuming you meant "de"coding

Is there something wrong with the other phrasing? You need to have a progressively encoded image before you can decode it progressively.

I am not sure how exactly the "progressive avif" works, but it looks like basically something optional that comes at a cost in the final file size, whereas in jxl some basic progressive encoding is always available (at least for lossy images) and doesn't come at a cost in file size.
the tldr is that video formats are relationship mediocre for images because the tradeoffs you make to compress an image that will be seen for 1/60th of a second are different than those for a static image.
Your point is not wrong in general but I want to nitpick that webp and avif are based on video compression techniques for I-frames which while themselves only shown for a single 1/FPS duration will impact a longer time slice of the video as other frames will reference them.