this post was submitted on 05 Sep 2026
135 points (99.3% liked)

Technology

87854 readers
2138 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
L3s@lemmy.world
enu@lemmy.world
technopagan@lemmy.world
L4s@lemmy.world
L3s@hackingne.ws
135
Intent to Ship: JPEG XL – Mozilla Hacks - the Web developer blog (hacks.mozilla.org)
submitted 15 hours ago by lemmydividebyzero@reddthat.com to c/technology@lemmy.world
33 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] lime@feddit.nu 26 points 14 hours ago* (last edited 14 hours ago) (2 children)

the big win is that it can re-encode existing jpegs to shrink them by like 30%. also the image is compressed spatially (i think that's the word) so it can be displayed as it's downloading rather than coming in line by line.

[–] sunbeam60@feddit.uk 1 points 4 hours ago (2 children)

But if you’re going through the trouble of re-encoding you might as well re-encode to AVIF, no?

[–] GamingChairModel@lemmy.world 1 points 2 hours ago

Re-encoding from JPEG to AVIF will always drop quality. Lossless re-encoding from JPEG to JPEG XL makes a pixel perfect reproduction, while shrinking file size.

[–] lime@feddit.nu 1 points 3 hours ago

jxl can also extract the original jpeg bit-for-bit, meaning you can save space on disk and still serve exactly the same images as some clients expect. no rewrites.

[–] pHr34kY@lemmy.world 13 points 14 hours ago (2 children)

I think many of us have several GBs of JPEGs that have accumulated over the years. It would be nice to shrink them a bit.

However I wouldn't do it until the majority of my software supports it. At least with JXL, you can transcode it back to legacy jpeg without losing quality

[–] deadcream@sopuli.xyz 5 points 13 hours ago

The biggest hurdle are messengers, especially including cross-platform support and mobile devices.

[–] Lojcs@piefed.social 2 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

Does the lossless transcode work both ways? Thought it was only jpg -> jxl

[–] pHr34kY@lemmy.world 5 points 11 hours ago

There seems to be a "JPEG reconstruction" feature that gets the original JPEG back.