Hacker News Reader

Comment by weinzierl | Hacker News Reader

True, but in my opinion JPEG XL has the right balance of features to become a true replacement of almost every relevant image format we use today, on the web and elsewhere.

Nothing is perfect and niche formats will always be necessary but I think JPEG XL has a good chance to become the USB of image formats.

View on HN

Yeah. Here is a surprisingly readable article on all the supported features and design decisions of JPEG XL: https://arxiv.org/abs/2506.05987

The 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.

That was indeed surprisingly readable and very in-depth at the same time. Thanks for sharing!

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.

How about AVIF?

I have not read that many direct comparisons here.

Much worse at lossless at least.

Depends 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.

On lossless? No.

Really? 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?

Definitely not with lossless. It consistently lose to JXL and WebP

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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com