That's about a 50% reduction in size, lossless, zero reduction in quality or change to pixels from lossless PNG to lossless JXL.

So the browser tools i built basically serves you the tools to easily convert stuff without needing to know anything about libjxl.

The JPEG reconstruction is the most interesting thing, you're taking a lossy JPEG, converting it to lossless JPEG XL, and you're seeing a 20% reduction in size while preserving that compression data.

Lemmy already supports webp through pictrs.

you can get a webp format image for every image uploaded.

Not against jpegxl though. But argument isn't as strong since jpegxl is prob more of tradeoff against it

Thanks for replying, I think it's still very worthwhile to support JPEG XL even while WebP exists given that WebP is technologically inferior to JPEG XL in almost every way.

could you list some of these ways?

I took a look and Pictrs already should support JXL (jpeg xl)

I believe it already works, all though unable to confirm this as I dont have anything atm that can display JXL.

^ even though the above says .webp it should be a jxl format image

see this for the default format https://git.asonix.dog/asonix/pict-rs/src/branch/main/pict-rs.toml#L347

But tbh i doubt the default format will change soon bc JXL support is very poor. No android device supports it yet. and the latest browsers only in beta. Only apple side it seems to have some support already.

my last 5 uploads averaged 10kilobyte per img (webp).
i don't disagree to say that we shouldn't use the best technology available.
but relevant to note: proper optimization of the image goes a loooong way.(often more effective than just relying on a file format with theoretical-max efficient compression.
i love this subject.. because i hate reddit where ppl upload a screenshot of plain-text from twitter and it costs me 1MB of scarce mobile data, to see some garbage post. fuck that

Yea this is diplaying in the UI for me, why does it requre the .webp?format=jxl instead of just being .jxl? Seems weird. If you want something that can display JPEG XL you can use chromium and go to chrome://flags/#enable-jxl

Indeed it's a huge waste, and with all these data center hysteria, this is a genuine solution to reduce data storage/transfer costs.

https://bulkimagepro.com/compare/next-gen-image-formats/

Firstly, I agree, but:

PNG to JXL is a laughably misleading comparison, the two formats have entirely different use cases

JPEG to JPEG XL is good enough of a comparison without leaving yourself open to such an obvious retort

JXL has a lossless mode, which is what they're referring to. Sounds like a fair comparison to me.

the two formats have entirely different use cases

Do they? JXL is lossless, this conversion is purely lossless. What are the different use cases?

You're saying those two images next to eachother are the same image? And that the left one is lossless? Because I can literally see the differences.

It's a compressed WebP so what you're seeing isn't truly the actual images. Unfortunately I had to upload a compressed WebP of the example, solely to display the size difference.

If you want to see clear comparisons go to https://jpegxl.info/

Lossy format beats lossless. More at 11.

It's from lossless PNG to lossless JXL.