Google's Jpegli Offers ~35% Compression Improvement For High Quality JPEGs

[phoronix]

Phoronix: Google's Jpegli Offers ~35% Compression Improvement For High Quality JPEGs

The Google Open-Source Blog today announced Jpegli, a JPEG coding library for encode/decode that maintains backwards compatibility with JPEG while offering around a 35% compression ratio improvement for high quality JPEG compression...

https://www.phoronix.com/news/Google-Jpegli-Library

[andyprough]

So now Google wants to tell us all about the benefits of jpeg-xl? How rich. And how very google.

[mirmirmir]

What do we say about this boys?

[discordian]

so thats like 59% better than webp, which was added... because something... while jpeg-xl is still missing from chrome.

[AmericanLocomotive]

So Google is trying to bring some Jpeg-XL technologies back to regular Jpeg, after they basically killed Jpeg-XL.

I'd also like to point out that Google's own office suite (Docs, Slides, Sheets, etc..) STILL does not support Google's own WebP format. So you can't even make a lightweight slide presentation using Google's own image format that's been out 6+ years now.

I swear this company has no real direction or guidance. Just seems to be thousands of different teams all doing their own thing, and when one team starts costing Google too much money, they kill it off.

[spicfoo]

I swear this company has no real direction or guidance. Just seems to be thousands of different teams all doing their own thing, and when one team starts costing Google too much money, they kill it off.

That's how all large companies work. They are not a monolith although people like to pretend that they are.

[lyamc]

They want to extend jpeg with some jpeg-xl features instead of just using jpeg-xl. What a terrible idea. Imagine using your favourite application to edit your 10-bit jpegs only for it to write the 8-bit data (introducing banding) because it doesn't support the extensions because why would they?

At least the reason for Google rejecting jxl makes sense now - can't justify paying a developer to make the same thing as something that already exists and does more.

Something I don't get though is this added in the libjxl github page. So are Google supporting jxl or not?

https://github.com/libjxl/libjxl/tree/main/lib/jpegli

[Quackdoc]

Jpegli is pretty nice, better then mozjpeg for very high fidelity images, but I find mozjpeg better in the range I normally encode jpegs. But it will for sure be nice for many images

They want to extend jpeg with some jpeg-xl features instead of just using jpeg-xl. What a terrible idea. Imagine using your favourite application to edit your 10-bit jpegs only for it to write the 8-bit data (introducing banding) because it doesn't support the extensions because why would they?

At least the reason for Google rejecting jxl makes sense now - can't justify paying a developer to make the same thing as something that already exists and does more.

Jpegli has been part of the jxl repo for a long time. https://github.com/libjxl/libjxl/tree/main/lib/jpegli

So now Google wants to tell us all about the benefits of jpeg-xl? How rich. And how very google.

one again, "google" is not one entitiy, JPEG-XL IS a google project too. the top 3/5 devs iirc are google employees for libjxl

[Delta_44]

Useless.
Just use AVIF

[Quackdoc]

Useless.
Just use AVIF

ewwww