Just saw that this is a community dedicated to this, but still i feel a need to tell you: jpeg-xl is kinda shit and does not need saving. Its vastly inferior to avif for all practical online use cases and all the issues with avif will be resolved sooner rather than later.
All the minor and major internet data transmitters have an interest in making avif better and its already used all over the place anyways. It works with every common browser, image viewer and editor already so the complaints from the video are really odd.
Doesn’t the video basically prove the opposite? That aside from a study sponsored by avif and Google that is likely biased, in practical use cases jpxl actually comes out ahead in almost every metric and is also not proprietary?
Just saw that this is a community dedicated to this, but still i feel a need to tell you: jpeg-xl is kinda shit and does not need saving. Its vastly inferior to avif for all practical online use cases and all the issues with avif will be resolved sooner rather than later.
All the minor and major internet data transmitters have an interest in making avif better and its already used all over the place anyways. It works with every common browser, image viewer and editor already so the complaints from the video are really odd.
What aspect of jpegxl do you think is inferior to avif? (You said jpeg, but I assume you meant jpegxl)
Did you even watch the video or are you commenting solely based on the title?
Doesn’t the video basically prove the opposite? That aside from a study sponsored by avif and Google that is likely biased, in practical use cases jpxl actually comes out ahead in almost every metric and is also not proprietary?