> The biggest benefit of JPEG XL would be the ability to combine the preview file, a traditional JPEG, with the RAW into a single file. The concept of “JPEG+RAW” would be obsolete, as a single JPEG XL can do both.
> Another aspect of the format that will appeal to photographers is that it’s got outstanding compression. “The difference between JPEG XL and the old JPEG is, well, I would say 50% at least, that you can reduce [the size of the file and get] the same quality,”
What do you mean hype? There's actually a 100% chance JPEG-XL is giving a smaller file than JPEG.
JPEG XL can compress, losslessly, a JPG file to a smaller file.
That .jxl can then be decompressed, bit-for-bit, to the original .jpg file (it's not just lossless in the way pixels are encoded: the resulting file can be bit-for-bit decompressed to the original .jpg file)
Gains range, every single time, from 10% to 30%.
Example here:
.. $ ls -l a.jpg && shasum a.jpg
... 615504 ... a.jpg
716744d950ecf9e5757c565041143775a810e10f a.jpg
.. $ cjxl a.jpg a.jxl
Read JPEG image with 615504 bytes.
Compressed to 537339 bytes including container
.. $ ls -l a.jxl
-rw-r--r-- 1 e e 537339 Jul 30 21:22 a.jxl
.. $ djxl a.jxl b.jpg
Read 537339 compressed bytes.
Reconstructed to JPEG.
.. $ ls -l b.jpg && shasum b.jpg
... 615504 ... b.jpg
716744d950ecf9e5757c565041143775a810e10f b.jpg
> What do you mean hype? There's actually a 100% chance JPEG-XL is giving a smaller file than JPEG.
As a one-word statement, it's a colloquial expression of excitement. OP isn't doubting that JPEG-XL is an improvement over JPEG; they're looking forward to it.
I think it is a great format, I can't wait to see how and if it proliferates.
At the same time, looking at Google Trends (just now) reveals that on a global level, in terms of worldwide searches - and in the last 12 months, searches for JPEG XL peaked at around 100, in a single day (sometime in September of last year).
That is a horrendously low amount of interest. Without a concerted effort in education (or re-education) it would appear that it doesn't matter even a tiny bit how much better this format is. To put it politely, almost nobody gives a shit.
> The biggest benefit of JPEG XL would be the ability to combine the preview file, a traditional JPEG, with the RAW into a single file. The concept of “JPEG+RAW” would be obsolete, as a single JPEG XL can do both.
> Another aspect of the format that will appeal to photographers is that it’s got outstanding compression. “The difference between JPEG XL and the old JPEG is, well, I would say 50% at least, that you can reduce [the size of the file and get] the same quality,”
Hype.
Yeah this is dumb. The DNG spec handles this fine
> Hype.
What do you mean hype? There's actually a 100% chance JPEG-XL is giving a smaller file than JPEG.
JPEG XL can compress, losslessly, a JPG file to a smaller file.
That .jxl can then be decompressed, bit-for-bit, to the original .jpg file (it's not just lossless in the way pixels are encoded: the resulting file can be bit-for-bit decompressed to the original .jpg file)
Gains range, every single time, from 10% to 30%.
Example here:
>> Hype.
> What do you mean hype? There's actually a 100% chance JPEG-XL is giving a smaller file than JPEG.
As a one-word statement, it's a colloquial expression of excitement. OP isn't doubting that JPEG-XL is an improvement over JPEG; they're looking forward to it.
I think it is a great format, I can't wait to see how and if it proliferates.
At the same time, looking at Google Trends (just now) reveals that on a global level, in terms of worldwide searches - and in the last 12 months, searches for JPEG XL peaked at around 100, in a single day (sometime in September of last year).
That is a horrendously low amount of interest. Without a concerted effort in education (or re-education) it would appear that it doesn't matter even a tiny bit how much better this format is. To put it politely, almost nobody gives a shit.
Disclaimer: it is my favourite format.
I don't care about lossy compression.