JyrkiAlakuijala

I believe that:

ssimulacra2 85 is rather close to median quality in the internet

ssimulacra2 90-95 is rather close to high quality in the internet

ssimulacra2 98+ is close to camera quality

13 CVEs (6 CVEs on decoding) over five years is a moderate or good track record. Legacy format libraries like libjpeg, libpng, or libtiff have historically accumulated dozens or hundreds of CVEs even if they were built several years before the CVE process was started.

libjxl's vulnerability rate is low, but it still reflects the growing pains of a modern high-quality C/C++ parsing library.

With Rust things can be safer: For jxl-oxide there is one CVE. libjxl-rs does not yet have filed CVEs.

that article does not seem specify which bit rates/quality targets were used for analysis, and uses a 1980s scanned photography film scan corpus for the claims ... let's use digital photography test corpora nowadays!

JPEG XL has been designed for keeping the image intact at the lowest possible bits per pixel (BPP), usually around 1 to 1.6 BPP.

AV1 was designed to deliver a pretty good new frame with as low as possible budget, and further video frames could bring the missing detail later. AVIF/AV1 has much more aggressive filtering and more features that are well suited for low bit budgets -- but also is missing features that are needed to get things right at higher quality.

JPEG XL can control filter strenght at 8x8 pixel resolution, whereas in AVIF filter strenght is constant over a 64x64 block.

Similarly, adaptive quantization is more fine grained in JPEG XL.

Finally, adaptive quantization automatically modulates the filter strength in JPEG XL (but not in AVIF), so the same data does not need to be sent twice for this purpose.

All of these three differences are visible in bit budgets only in the higher quality images.

JPEG XL decoder complexity is propaganda.

JPEG XL decoder is smaller in kloc than zlib+libpng. About 35 kloc vs 20+20 kloc.

Twelve years after the effort began, JPEG XL is fully coming into its own. We started by advancing psychovisual modeling with Butteraugli, inventing the XYB colorspace, and developing Guetzli and Brunsli. This groundwork led to PIK, and during the JPEG XL competition, I proposed a two-platform approach to the committee that successfully fused PIK and FUIF into the final standard.

Following successful adoption in professional photography (Digital Negative etc.), documents (PDF/EPUB), and medical imaging (DICOM), we are now completing full Web compatibility.

Our next frontier is bringing native JPEG XL support to cameras, including smartphone cameras.

Depends on the user. Some users are more sensitive for flashing images. Some users have very slow or unreliable network connection. Some sites have bigger images. Some sites (such as ecommerce) have higher quality and resolution needs.

Some users have uncorrected astigmatism. In the general population, the average uncorrected astigmatism typically falls between 0.50 and 0.75 diopters (D), and ~15 % more than 1.0. The high astigmatism people will see images blurred in any case and don't benefit from the fine structural detail JPEG XL can give. People with glasses and the lucky ones with low astigmatism will see the details clearly.

Sometimes passionate ends of different quality of vision seem to have a discussion on what makes sense as the web quality, with one emphasizing quality 40 being more than enough and another requesting a quality of 95.

The same kind of individualism exist also in temporal cognition and perception.

I made that AI rendering and consider it demonstrates the conceptual discussions we had likely better than what an actual whiteboard drawing would look like. An actual whiteboard drawing from our day to day work would be very confusing without a lot of context and discussion. I have to admit that whiteboard drawings were somewhat rare in our real JPEG XL development, but it has been an intensively collaborative effort.

Parent comment says I should not be known and my picture should not be on the blog post. I just want to disagree with that. In my opinion JPEG XL is a notable success and it is also ok to celebrate us, its makers.

No it would not, qoi falls behind even my 2011 WebP lossless design.

Also, it is not a competition for the shortest specification. If it was, still good. Jpeg xl spec is about half the size of the original jpeg spec.

I wrote it, with some help from Gemini as my own English is clumsy and expensive to correct manually, and created the "photo" and the "chart". I am to blame. I thought the story of a 10+ year running OSS project with intermediate milestones would be fascinating for people.