‘The average Web consumer’ may not need lossless, but a non-negligible minority very well might, hence why lossless should absolutely be on topic.
JPEG XL is an open format with a libre reference implementation, usually compresses better than WebP/PNG, and supposedly has plenty of room for improvement still (in said implementation). Add to that its versatility in other areas and the fact that it seems to have generated widespread interest (much unlike WebP in its time, from what I recall), and I think campaigning for it makes perfect sense.
I can accept a claim that JPEG-XL is not the best format for it, or that it is good, but not worth the complexity and extra surface area it introduces. I can not accept a claim that "lossless just isn't very useful on the web".
I think its correct to say a use case that is very niche on the web isn't super important to the web. Especially when there already exists a bunch of lossless formats. After all, the value proposition of jxl is to save some bytes. It would be different if the point was introducing images as a whole.
> Especially when there already exists a bunch of lossless formats.
Sure, but I'm not defending JXL here in particular, just arguing against the point that lossless images are unimportant on the web.
Scenes often comprise gigabytes of lossless webp, some of which you can see at https://superspl.at.
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 withdrawn!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.
(.heif is sometimes used as a file extension generically, but HEIF is itself a container that can support various payloads.)
Bit of a nit, but can you add that as a note to the legends/graphs in the future? As a layperson, it helps us to orient to graphs with unknown metrics.
Thanks for the article, btw!
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?
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?
And nearly everyone who takes photos of their family ends storage-constrained on cameras at some point. Memory cards only holding so much is less of an issue than it used to be, but in my experience the only people with laptops that have more than 1 TB of disk space are the computer professionals I know; every non-computer professional I personally know has 1 TB or less, usually 512 GB. That's room for plenty of photos, but not an infinite amount, and the photo collection (plus videos of baby's first steps and so on) is competing with a lot of other things for storage space. So being able to shrink the collection size by 30% or more with no artifacting added is definitely going to be worth it for one of the biggest selling points for cameras. (Including the cameras on smartphones).
I wouldn't say that JXL is absolutely vital and the industry should switch right now. But I would say that it's likely to be the only image format that has a chance to displace JPEG among the average camera user. Having JPEG in the name is also going to be a major selling point; don't underestimate that. (And the JPEG <-> JPEG XL conversion being lossless will complete the selling point).
Since (if I'm right) it's going to end up ubiquitous, then even if another format would be technically better, it would be wise for everyone writing software that handles images — browsers, OS file explorers, and so on — to make sure their software can support it. Just on general principles of supporting every widely-used format and every format that looks likely to be widely-used in the future.
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/
It doesn't support progressive images or it doesn't support progressive decoding of images?
The former would be a massive compatibility issue, the latter would only be a quality of implementation issue.
In all cases, the browsers are able to render the final image, they just don't show the intermediate stages.
For every other image encoder I used I couldn't find one setting that would make compact, high-quality images across the gamut of inputs (e.g. things like comics that have extremely visible high-frequency content would look terrible at quality settings that looked good for many photographs).
Compared to JXL (which admittedly has almost nobody working on except veluca these days...) which was focused on it since the beginning, I think it really matters.
In the ‘Lossy Compression Efficiency’ section, you compare the codecs using various metrics, but I don’t think you say anywhere what quality the images were encoded for. Did you forget to mention that or am I just reading things wrong?
(I assume BD-rate tells us how similar the images look, but I also assume the values would change if the encoders were made to target different qualities, hence why the intended quality seems quite important to know.)