cancel
Showing results for 
Show  only  | Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
chi
Strollin' around
Status: Trending idea

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

comparison

148 Comments
hmry
Strollin' around

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.

Rad
New member

I've been using JPEG XL on my images for a while now, it's a good format. Hope to see it enabled in FF soon regardless what a certain big company decides.

Rad
New member

In my own tests and usage JXL worked best among modern image formats, to the point where I thought it was almost a forgone conclusion that it would be enabled in browsers very soon. Like the other people here, I hope you can enable support by default.

BryanPierce
New member

JPEG XL is the best image format available today for vast majority of web use cases. It ought to be fully supported by the web's best browser.

Womprat
New member

Yes to Jpeg XL!

vanontom
Strollin' around

Please Mozilla, give it a shot. I've (we've all!) been waiting for a successor to JPEG for so long. I've tried many formats over the years but, long story short, nothing has been as efficient and polished as JXL. I think it is truly ready, now, to become the new image format of choice, on all platforms. It just needs recognition and adoption.

For those that haven't checked JPEG XL out, it's as simple as grabbing XnView and batch converting. I'm getting around 80% savings at q80 (from JPEG q90 at 12 MPx), and cant find noticeable quality loss. Obviously results will vary (digital art and smooth gradients seem more needy), but it's extremely impressive. Then there's the lossless mode, that's beating WebP in many tests. Plus royalty-free. Biggest downside is encoding speed, but it's to be expected and quite tolerable (and beats competitors). HEIC and AVIF still have so many problems, but JXL is ready.

andibad
New member

Is already 10+ year google trying so pushy on their webp and vp8 codec, but still failed to attract many party to use them. And i wont to used it even they rename it to AV1 and AVIF, is still worst. h264 is still better on average usage than AV1. Same case with microsd on android phone which google trying get rid it since 2015, or since android 9 by tuning down the speed on os level, and used those as performance problem as excuse, in reality is not the case. All the reason behind it is just solely political, google want controlling you, use their services, is more worse than Microsoft do in the past.

I hope firefox will supported jpeg xl, and i will switched back to firefox and never going back to crappy chrome. 

dodolol
New member

+1 to JPEG XL support in Firefox -- it seems like it has potential to be "one format to rule them all"

Archprogrammer
Strollin' around

A somewhat more in-depth comparison and analysis of the data provided by Google can be found here: https://cloudinary.com/blog/contemplating-codec-comparisons

Short version: Real life data appears to support the case for JPEG-XL not only feature-wise, but also with regards to speed and efficiency of compression.

verysmallcats
New member

I really hope to see support for this. That would be amazing.

iopq
Strollin' around

It has several advantages:

Being able to recompress JPEGs losslessly with a space saving

Large bit and image size limits which means no tile boundary effects, or much generational loss when re-encoding

https://cloudinary.com/blog/time_for_next_gen_codecs_to_dethrone_jpeg

gbcox
New member

Seems to be pretty much a no-brainer. Mozilla should be taking every reasonable opportunity to differentiate Fx from Chrome and the chrome-a-clone brethren.

MattAuSupport
Familiar face

The implementation bug for this is here https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1539075

 

Simile9041
Strollin' around

Great suggestion. It's a low-hanging fruit to surpass Chrome and make Firefox the preferred browser for some WebDevs as well.

CD71
New member

Hello, since yesterday Darktable can export to JXL and my first tests are fantastic:

  • quality
  • size
  • speed
  • format options

Please add JXL support!