Support JPEG XL

[chi]

I think it's a great opportunity for Firefox to stand out by supporting JPEG XL before any other browser.

Imagine images served by Cloudflare and Cloudinary load faster and look better only with Firefox. Firefox was a pioneer of web technologies and it should win the title back, if Firefox just keep following Chrome without any differentiation, why would people choose Firefox?

If the decoder memory safety is a concern, maybe Mozilla can start a crowd funding campaign to sponsor a Rust decoder, even the campaign itself will attract reports and attentions for Firefox.

Mozilla argued AVIF was already supported as a same generation but clearly JPEG XL has many advantages:

• Much better encoding performance (AVIF is not suitable for realtime CDN optimization at all)
• lossless and better high fidelity (video codec based image format)
• HDR (there will be a billion of mobile devices with real good & bright screen in just a few years)
• Little generation loss (important for web)

Supports from Facebook, Adobe (they're adding export support), Intel and VESA, Krita, The Guardian, libvips, Cloudinary, Shopify

[Jon]

Thanks for submitting an idea to the Mozilla Connect community! Your idea is now open to votes (aka kudos) and comments.

[arun54321]

For more information please visit:

Why-jxl

jpegxl.info

[Kitsuna]

Given the recent debacle with chrome and choosing to depreciate that codex where we saw multiple large company Representatives including intel, and video, Adobe just to name a few all getting confused and saying we were waiting for this to be supported in browsers with many of them even saying that they already had infrastructure in place just waiting to flip the switch. I think it makes sense and could easily gain Firefox a lot of market share

[benganley]

Jpeg XL support in web browsers will be a great thing for medical imaging!

[FoxtrotCZ]

I personally wait for good lossless compression codec to replace PNG. In this regard JPEG XL is a lot better than AVIF.

[TheJaredWilcurt]

Can't wait for widespread JXL support, especially once browsers can handle truncating/resuming downloads automatically so we can stop having to create n number of alternatives for different resolution images and set up media queries to conserve bandwidth. This can, and should just be automated for us. JXL is the only option that does. It's also just replaces everything. The best lossy and lossless compression. Also animation with 24-bit transparency. The only thing it doesn't do better than everyone else is when you way overcompress the image, but like, no one does that, so who cares (sorry avif, I know that's the only thing you're good at). I probably won't use the saliency maps myself, but happy that they exist in JXL for those that will use them.

Again, can't wait for JXL to be officially supported by default in browsers.

[louie_ff48]

Just to put it out there: Affinity products (Affinity Photo and Affinity Designer) also just added JPEG XL support in their V2 update.

Affinity Photo is particularly notable as it is probably the second most popular photo editing tool, second only to Adobe Photoshop.

Other notable software with JPEG XL (JXL) support include FFMPEG, GIMP, Darktable, and ImageMagick.

More software is listed on the Why JXL page.

[Jon]

Hey all,

Here with an exciting update…

Your idea has quickly received a great deal of votes (kudos) and support here in the Mozilla Connect community, so we are upgrading the status to “Trending idea.” This means it’s now one step closer to reaching our internal teams for review—learn more about The Idea Journey.

Please keep the conversation going and stay tuned for updates 😃

-The Community Team

[Coconut]

There are patches waiting to be merged, that further improve JXL decoding in Firefox. Let's get them merged and working out of the box without having to use Nightly. So far there is no other image format with more potential right now, or even close, which makes it a no-brainer right now. Otherwise I would understand the hesitation. But there is no competition right now. Retrofitted video codecs don't compete with a real image format.

[sobral]

I've to agree to @Coconut :

> Retrofitted video codecs don't compete with a real image format.

I tried AVIF on 2 projects before to give it up because it's so slow that it hurts! An AVIF file is a movie of 1 single frame.

[conrad]

Here's a list of noteworthy replies to the issue on Chromium issue tracker. I sincerely do not understand why Google would make claims about the lack of industry interest considering the state of things. Firefox getting a headstart on JXL support could be fairly useful IMO and might finally be the thing that forces their hand. I've spent a lot of time reading through stuff about JXL vs. AVIF vs. WebP vs. JPEG vs. PNG and I sincerely believe it's a straight upgrade to everything except AVIF, and even for AVIF it's clearly superior IMO. AVIF has a slight advantage at compression for very low bitrate photographic images and basically nothing else. It might have some advantage in terms of animation but I honestly think HTML5 <video> tags + webm (VP9 or AV1) would be a much better solution to either AVIF or JXL for animation.

 

[Daseinn]

Strongly agree with this, the benefits are big & adoption would pick up once browsers begin implementing it. Been following the development of JPEG-XL for a while now

[boris]

I've been waiting for JPEG XL support for over a year. Please put in .jxl support into Firefox as soon as reasonable.

[eocarragain]

+1 for jxl support in firefox

[mlowry]

Terrific idea!