> 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,”
While DNG uses JPEG XL internally for great compression, its implementation sacrifices some of JPEG XL's inherent advantages. For instance, JPEG XL's progressive rendering and preview capabilities are lost within the DNG container. Additionally, JPEG XL's lack of frame boundaries (it has consistent filtering defined over all frame/tile boundaries -- being the only image codec that gets this right!!), is negated when used in DNG's tiled structure. This tiling introduces frame boundary artifacts at lower quality levels, similar to how other codecs behave in tiled contexts. Although these are minor issues, a pure JPEG XL implementation would offer superior progressive display, previewing, and artifact-free compression compared to the DNG-wrapped version.
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.
Readit News
> 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.
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:
> 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.
Deleted Comment