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

[arun54321]

If maintaining new format is a problem, firefox team could just drop supporting avif and enable jxl. As only less than 0.1% website use it and many popular websites and apps are eager to adopt jxl.

[Archprogrammer]

Excellent idea!

JPEG XL seems to tick all the right boxes and would really benefit large groups of users with a full production feature set from low-end size-constrained image delivery to HDR image authoring/rendering (unlike WebP...).

[Yoochan]

As stated previously this format is perfect for still pictures and short animations. It replace gif, png and jpeg without any loss of quality, only gain in size.

Its lossless conversion from existing jpeg is just ideal and its progressive capability based on truncated files is dark magic!

[_KiwiMike_]

Please bring this image format to Firefox. It's going to change the web and how we do things in Web, Design and Photography in so many ways.

Like OP suggested let Firefox be the platform to get it first.

[_KiwiMike_]

Please add support. This is a huge step for Web Development and smaller and accessible web pages.

[Alliegaytor]

Having tried out JPEG XL because of this post, I'm honestly quite impressed! This really sounds like, if implemented properly, it would be a differentiating feature for Firefox and a potential solution for decreasing web bloat. This codec has a lot of potential. I'm currently testing it in Nightly, but it would be nice to see it in the stable release.

[FoxNap]

Based on my experience with JPEG XL, it looks like a good image format that will replace JPEG, WebP, and PNG. Please bring it to Firefox. Thank you.

[zeroby0]

JPEG-XL would be extremely beneficial for the web and I think it's very important that Firefox supports it, both for individual user experience and the global and environmental impact.

Personally, I store images for my website in a CDN in 3 formats and 4 different sizes. JPEG-XL could replace all of them: I can store a single .jxl, losslessly convert it to JPEG on the fly for unsupported clients, and truncate the bitstream to sizes suitable for client view-ports on the fly. JPEG-XL supports progressive decoding, and is also much faster to process than AVIF on current hardware.

These space and processing savings, applied at the global scale, would have a significant impact on our carbon emissions. An AVIF only world is also discriminatory to populations using cheap or outdated hardware, where hardware AVIF decoding wouldn't be mainstream for years to come.

Analysis of user data from Chrome shows that higher quality pictures, even at the cost of higher bits-per-pixel, are preferred for web use. AV1/AVIF tries to minimise the bits-per-pixel at the cost of per-frame image quality (which is the right choice for a video codec!), while JPEG-XL produces images with excellent quality at a slightly higher bits-per-pixel. AV1 and AVIF are an essential part of the ecosystem, but JPEG-XL is a better choice for still images on the web and is just as essential.

There is a strong interest in JPEG-XL even outside the web, in amateur and professional photography, authoring, medical imaging, and in print. My research group is evaluating JPEG-XL for image transmission from orbit and deep sea, and it looks very promising so far. Web Browsers are the most used software in the world, and being unsupported here would have network effects impacting those other areas.

Firefox has always put people over corporate interests (recent examples I know are manifest v2/3, being careful about web-usb and web-bluetooth privacy, and extensions in the mobile browser), and is in my opinion, really a gift to humanity. As Chrome(ium) continues to abuse its market dominance and make short sighted decisions without regard for people, I hope my browser of choice continues leading the path to the better future for the web.

Please bring JPEG-XL support to general availability as reasonably soon as possible. Thank you ❤️

[kremlinbot]

+1.

Mozilla have always described itself as "a company that fights for the better Internet". So, here's a codec that will help make the Internet websites load faster (which is especially crucial in 3rd-world countries) and there's a chance to prove this slogan by being the first to support it!

[rin202211302247]

(to the person above, there's already another much "smaller time" browserthat already has JPEG-XL enabled by default, but I don't dare risk naming the browser on here other than saying that its naming/branding is "lunar")

[Bluesmith]

@JonSReally hope libjxl/JPEG-XL gets support on Firefox 🤞🏼 😕

[Dasein]

@JonFingers crossed! Really hoping for this libjxl one to get implemented in a Firefox Study/Test soon 🤞🏼👀

(Whoops, it picked the wrong Jon 😅)

[cmhdave73]

I have worked quite substantially with JPEG-2000 and this is THE most logical next implementation for web browsers. It's a no brainer.

[anon]

I've been waiting for JXL support in browsers for a while now. Please do this!

[hmry]

Just wanted to join in and say: "Yes please!"
Lossless JPEG re-compression might be the best thing to happen to web media in a looong while.
I serves 20+MB JPEG files on the regular and would love switching to 10+MB JPEG-XL files instead. Surely all the mobile internet users and image CDNs of the world would love that too.

And I will gladly check the Accept headers on every request and tell people "Hey, this page loads faster on Firefox! Consider switching?" until other browsers agree.