"For non-photographic images, the argument that “they should be vector images” doesn't hold up because many images could be vector images but aren't, and they can't be vectorized perfectly. “The world should be different” is not a justifiable defense against optimizing for the way the world actually is."
This is a good paragraph. I see people forget to apply that last sentence all the time.
That JPEG XL prime computation is a pretty ugly DoS. Just selecting it in Finder, with the preview pane open, maxed out every core on my Mac inside a QuickLookSatellite that also ate 4GB of RAM while doing so - for a good 15 seconds. Not bad for a 2KB picture. It seems like Apple did not set sane limits on their JXL previewer.
It is, however, an incredibly cool demo of what the format is capable of. I'm not completely sure if an image format should be that flexible, but I'm impressed nonetheless.
Probably not; for PNG, the image size is declared in the header, so a decoder can decide immediately if it wants to decode the image or not. The output is bounded by the size of the image times the bit depth, and decompression runs in time proportional to output size. zlib bombs exist, but they don't affect png because a decoder can simply refuse to decompress past the size of the pixel buffer.
> Progressive rendering (which AVIF supports) decodes a low-fidelity rendition before the full image arrives. AVIF didn't support progressive rendering for a while, and during that time I believe it was deeply oversold. Now that libavif has implemented it (it was always possible), the conversation appears to be over.
This is false. AVIF does not support progressive decoding/rendering. What the author is referring to here is image layering. A lower resolution image layered below the full resolution image, which is loaded and rendered first. That is not progressive decoding/rendering. It is a thumbnail.
Unlike AVIF's false advertising, JXL truly supports progressive decoding/rendering. With JXL, you do not first load a thumbnail before loading the actual image. The lower-quality image that JXL shows while decoding is derived from the data of the actual, full-resolution image.
Not sure if the difference is materially relevant to UX at all. JPEG XL achieves progressive rendering at a great cost to its selection of coding tools, so I side with AVIF's approach.
Progressive rendering is just a different way to layout the pixel data. Embedding a thumbnail is storing two distinct images. In other words, progressive rendering should be more efficient space and bandwidth-wise.
Yes, if you look at the demo, the "progressive" AVIF loads a visible image at 8.5KB, and at that point, it looks better than the progressive JXL. However, that is ALL the AVIF shows until the image has fully loaded. At around 98KB, the JXL looks significantly better, and at around 240KB already looks really close to the final image, while the AVIF still looks terrible. At 280KB when the AVIF finally loads, they look identical.
The difference matters, as it means that AVIF's "progressive decoding" serves no technical benefit and is only a minor ergonomic benefit: On a website, you could achieve the same effect simply by layering two <img> elements on top of each other, one with the thumbnail and one with the final image.
If layering to <img> elements is fine for your use case, then it simply means you have no need for progressive decoding.
If JPEG XL doesn’t become useful on the web, is it really likely to become popular with camera manufacturers, professional image editing tools, etc?
What does it offer there that existing workflows can’t support? Do those advantages make up for the transcoding that every web publisher would need to do to make the outputs useful on the web?
> If JPEG XL doesn’t become useful on the web, is it really likely to become popular with camera manufacturers, professional image editing tools, etc?
I suspect that eventually, the browser makers that are reluctant to add JpegXL support will do so, even if reluctantly, and so it will eventually "become useful on the web".
The reason why is Adobe added JpegXL as a compression format for PDF's, and as every browser maker wants their browser to also be a "PDF viewer", this means they must include a JpegXL decoder to be able to support PDF's going forward. If they must have a JpegXL decoder anyway, it is not that difficult to also add it as another supported format for the <img> tag.
Web publishers should definitely be stripping metadata at least, and transcoding isn't much harder. For anyone who cares about bandwidth, transcoding to efficient formats is non-negotiable; if you don't, then why do anything? Just ship PNG, who cares?
I think one of the compelling use cases for camera manufacturers would be an interoperable format for editors. Since JXL has support for so many channels, you could load your image into an editor, edit it, add layers, etc., and export as JXL, which could be used for other things.
I wasn't really sold on the argument initially, given they admit there's some real lossless usecases, but this is a good bit from the conclusion:
> Not to mention an additional compatibility headache now exists for anyone just trying to download an image from the Internet and use it somewhere – it was hard enough to get widespread WebP adoption, and I don't think it's worth doubling the pain by having to climb the same hill for AVIF and JPEG XL. Especially when JPEG XL doesn't appear to add anything to the Web platform.
It is very annoying downloading an image for the web and then trying to upload it somewhere else also on the web during these transition periods.
There exist lossless use cases, for sure. I think most people would be well-served by high-fidelity lossy that saves a lot of bits while still looking perceptually identical. Whoever isn't served by that most likely doesn't care about size savings, and can stick with lossless PNG.
We all know these aren't purely technical reasons, it's to break the monopoly of one Internet Company's decoder format portfolio. You can't let one Fruit Company's format be the thing either, so it's basically a L for engineering but a W for pleasing everyone TBF.
AVIF is royalty-free, with open-source implementations not developed by Google. Google's implementation is libaom; as you can see, SVT-AV1 beats it. SVT-AV1 is developed by a number of companies – historically Meta, Netflix, Intel, independent contractors, and others. I worked on SVT-AV1 myself. I don't see how this is a bad thing for everyone, even if Google drove standardization of AV1?
Much like WEBP, JPEG-XL is two different codecs in one. There's VARDCT mode, and Modular Mode. Modular Mode is normally used for lossless, but it can also be used for lossy as well. When you use Lossy Modular Mode, you get different kinds of compression artifacts than what you'd see in a JPEG file.
For Lossless: JPEG-XL wins, then WEBP, then PNG. (Sometimes lossless WEBP wins)
For Lossy: AVIF wins, then JPEG-XL, then WEBP, then JPEG.
Lossless was discounted due to webp, but doesn't webp lossless only use 8bit depth RGB? (I think it is important to have a separate file extension for lossless stuff anyway, otherwise it gets confusing quickly)
I can tell you that I don't care if the AI slop used in everyone's AI generated blog is lossy compressed. In fact, expecting it to be of such import that lossless is required is pretty farcical.
SVT-AV1 is also more than just open source in name only; development and discussions happen in the open; with many community forks that’s now getting upstreamed/merged.
It is a true open source project; not just an open source license.
SVT-AV1-PSY was the first fork, and I created it. When the project matured, the maintainers reached out directly to get things merged – I can confirm it is a great project with great people who are very easy to work with.
I would argue that even if JPEG XL isn't the best choice for Web images, if browsers don't support it then that will widely hinder its adoption for its non-Web use cases. Would you agree?
The scenario I'm thinking of is sending a photograph by email. Let's say Sally has just had her second baby, and wants to send baby pictures to her mother, the baby's grandmother. Neither Sally nor her mother are computer professionals, and they don't want to care about image formats. Sally wants to upload a file from her camera, attach it to an email, and send it. Her mother wants to click on the email and see pictures of her new grandchild. Neither one of them wants to have to convert the image themselves.
Let's say it's a few years in the future and Sally's camera produces JPEG XL files by default. (Which I don't think would happen if browsers didn't support it, for exactly the reason I'm about to articulate). If Sally's mother's browser doesn't support displaying JPEG XL, then although Sally (who uses a different browser than her mother) sees the picture in the email when she sends it, her mother writes back an email saying "the picture didn't show up, can you resend it?" And they spend a few back-and-forth emails before finally getting tech support from a friend who helps Sally convert the picture to old-school JPEG so her mother can see it.
If that's the experience for end-users, cameras would hesitate to switch to JPEG XL as a default format. Because nobody wants a hostile review from a user saying "My mother couldn't load my baby pictures, what kind of lousy camera are you making?"
So even if it's not the best format for the Web, I'm still persuaded that having universal browser support for a format intended for photos is an important factor, and devices like cameras will not switch to it as a default format until manufacturers are certain that browser support (and OS support, and electronic photo frame support, and so on) is nearly universal.
None of that takes away from the argument "Other image formats are better for saving space on the Web", which is the main thrust of your post. But I do disagree with the last line, "I'm just not personally convinced we need it in browsers any time soon." I believe that if browser adoption is lacking, adoption of the format in places where it makes lots of sense (like cameras) will also be slow.
> I would argue that even if JPEG XL isn't the best choice for Web images, if browsers don't support it then that will widely hinder its adoption for its non-Web use cases.
Both Firefox and Chrome [1] have committed to shipping JPEG XL later this year. Safari has supported JPEG XL since 2023, though their implementation doesn't support progressive images yet.
So the major web browsers will support JPEG XL later this fall.
> But I do disagree with the last line, "I'm just not personally convinced we need it in browsers any time soon." I believe that if browser adoption is lacking, adoption of the format in places where it makes lots of sense (like cameras) will also be slow.
I'm not even personally convinced it is useful for cameras. Sally's situation isn't particularly bandwidth or feature-constrained, so JPEG or PNG work. Maybe JXL is solving problems that don't exist?
I think it is a potentially good camera format, good medical & scientific imaging format, good RAW compression format (Apple uses it in some newer iPhones for this), good media interchange formats for tools like Photoshop (think about storing all of your layers inside of one JPEG XL that's fully compatible with .psd files), and more. It is incredibly expressive and versatile, which is what makes it so risky on the Web.
Worth noting that this progressive AVIF, when viewed in Chrome, has only two states: a "base layer" which pops in around 8KB, and the full image which appears 270KB later. The comparison JXL continues to refine during most of the download, so it winds up looking substantially better than the AVIF at around 95KB loaded, and looks pretty good (almost as good as the full 280KB AVIF) by 175KB. I suspect that there are a lot of knobs to turn for both progressive modes, but this particular case could definitely be cherry-picked to favour either codec.
This is a good paragraph. I see people forget to apply that last sentence all the time.
It is, however, an incredibly cool demo of what the format is capable of. I'm not completely sure if an image format should be that flexible, but I'm impressed nonetheless.
This is false. AVIF does not support progressive decoding/rendering. What the author is referring to here is image layering. A lower resolution image layered below the full resolution image, which is loaded and rendered first. That is not progressive decoding/rendering. It is a thumbnail.
Unlike AVIF's false advertising, JXL truly supports progressive decoding/rendering. With JXL, you do not first load a thumbnail before loading the actual image. The lower-quality image that JXL shows while decoding is derived from the data of the actual, full-resolution image.
If layering to <img> elements is fine for your use case, then it simply means you have no need for progressive decoding.
What does it offer there that existing workflows can’t support? Do those advantages make up for the transcoding that every web publisher would need to do to make the outputs useful on the web?
I suspect that eventually, the browser makers that are reluctant to add JpegXL support will do so, even if reluctantly, and so it will eventually "become useful on the web".
The reason why is Adobe added JpegXL as a compression format for PDF's, and as every browser maker wants their browser to also be a "PDF viewer", this means they must include a JpegXL decoder to be able to support PDF's going forward. If they must have a JpegXL decoder anyway, it is not that difficult to also add it as another supported format for the <img> tag.
I think one of the compelling use cases for camera manufacturers would be an interoperable format for editors. Since JXL has support for so many channels, you could load your image into an editor, edit it, add layers, etc., and export as JXL, which could be used for other things.
HEIF is what is getting support in recent models; but JPEG still rules supreme for its compatibility.
> Not to mention an additional compatibility headache now exists for anyone just trying to download an image from the Internet and use it somewhere – it was hard enough to get widespread WebP adoption, and I don't think it's worth doubling the pain by having to climb the same hill for AVIF and JPEG XL. Especially when JPEG XL doesn't appear to add anything to the Web platform.
It is very annoying downloading an image for the web and then trying to upload it somewhere else also on the web during these transition periods.
What exactly is "Fruit Company's format"?
For Lossless: JPEG-XL wins, then WEBP, then PNG. (Sometimes lossless WEBP wins)
For Lossy: AVIF wins, then JPEG-XL, then WEBP, then JPEG.
Also, look at the graphs – Iris-WebP beats JPEG XL.
EDIT: Oh! Of course. AVIF is based on AV1. For some reason I was thinking HEIF the entire time I was reading the article. Man... withdrawn!
Really good read, btw. Very good points.
Edit: saw you corrected. Much appreciated!
It is a true open source project; not just an open source license.
The scenario I'm thinking of is sending a photograph by email. Let's say Sally has just had her second baby, and wants to send baby pictures to her mother, the baby's grandmother. Neither Sally nor her mother are computer professionals, and they don't want to care about image formats. Sally wants to upload a file from her camera, attach it to an email, and send it. Her mother wants to click on the email and see pictures of her new grandchild. Neither one of them wants to have to convert the image themselves.
Let's say it's a few years in the future and Sally's camera produces JPEG XL files by default. (Which I don't think would happen if browsers didn't support it, for exactly the reason I'm about to articulate). If Sally's mother's browser doesn't support displaying JPEG XL, then although Sally (who uses a different browser than her mother) sees the picture in the email when she sends it, her mother writes back an email saying "the picture didn't show up, can you resend it?" And they spend a few back-and-forth emails before finally getting tech support from a friend who helps Sally convert the picture to old-school JPEG so her mother can see it.
If that's the experience for end-users, cameras would hesitate to switch to JPEG XL as a default format. Because nobody wants a hostile review from a user saying "My mother couldn't load my baby pictures, what kind of lousy camera are you making?"
So even if it's not the best format for the Web, I'm still persuaded that having universal browser support for a format intended for photos is an important factor, and devices like cameras will not switch to it as a default format until manufacturers are certain that browser support (and OS support, and electronic photo frame support, and so on) is nearly universal.
None of that takes away from the argument "Other image formats are better for saving space on the Web", which is the main thrust of your post. But I do disagree with the last line, "I'm just not personally convinced we need it in browsers any time soon." I believe that if browser adoption is lacking, adoption of the format in places where it makes lots of sense (like cameras) will also be slow.
What are your thoughts on that argument?
Both Firefox and Chrome [1] have committed to shipping JPEG XL later this year. Safari has supported JPEG XL since 2023, though their implementation doesn't support progressive images yet.
So the major web browsers will support JPEG XL later this fall.
[1]: "Intent to Ship: JPEG XL" - https://hacks.mozilla.org/2026/08/intent-to-ship-jpeg-xl/
I'm not even personally convinced it is useful for cameras. Sally's situation isn't particularly bandwidth or feature-constrained, so JPEG or PNG work. Maybe JXL is solving problems that don't exist?