Do you have a general stance about it?

Once every couple of months I look into the state of both projects and it’s slow but steadily progressing.

I am mainly looking into it because of the file compression. My tests showed that I can save up to 70% in disk space for a jpg image without losing too much information for both formats, avif and jxl. It depends on the images but in general it’s astonishing and I wonder why I still save jpgs in 100% quality.

But, I could also just save or convert my whole library to 70% jpg compression. Any advice?

  • toastal
    2·
    10 months ago

    I’ve converted my old phone photos backups to JXL recently thru transparent compression & saw a similar 30% smaller files. When converting out RAW files I usually pick something like 96% as close enough to 100%. The JXL uptake in the free software category has been pretty damn good. The last year I’ve been using <picture> on the web to upload only a JXL file + PNG/JPEG fallback because users don’t actually want video containers. I would consider WebP & AVIF only for niche cases where I need a raster graphic but I see no use case for a user ever wanting to save the file to their disk.

    If Android supported JXL natively it would be amazing. It seems like an absolute waste of space for photos from my phone to take up 30% more space to no benefit. Chrome’s internal fighting allowing AVIF to be the championed format is a real shame tho as AV1 takes more resources to encode & leads to better perceptual quality:size ratio only in some cases.