Lossless was discounted because lossless just isn't very useful on the Web

SmasherEpilepti 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I'm active in many art communities on the web for whom being able to view and share lossless images are table stakes. Also many other communities for which being able to view and share lossless screen captures is fundamental.

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".

▲

bawolff 5 hours ago | parent [-]

What percentage of the web is that 0.1% ? 0.01% ?

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.

▲

out_of_protocol an hour ago | parent [-]

count .png-s in the web. There's a lot. And .jxl's lossless is much better than png's. Basically any image with sharp lines (screenshots, image of a button etc) or gradients should be lossless.

	▲	jaffathecake an hour ago \| parent [-]
		This is outdated thinking. AVIF is really good at sharp lines & gradients. https://hacks.mozilla.org/2026/08/intent-to-ship-jpeg-xl/#:~...

▲

slimbuck 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Perhaps niche compared to the entire web, but we use lossless webp for gaussian splat data delivery for realtime rendering. (https://developer.playcanvas.com/user-manual/gaussian-splatt...).

Scenes often comprise gigabytes of lossless webp, some of which you can see at https://superspl.at.

	▲	slimbuck 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		We could get better compression using a custom encoder, however with webp the browser decodes off the main thread, copies the resulting data to GPU memory and caches the images for us. All very useful on the web!

▲

F3nd0 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

It may not be as widely used as lossy, but it does have valid uses that lossy just can’t substitute and the web needs to accomodate for. And the space savings offered by JPEG XL seem pretty great in that regard.

‘The average Web consumer’ may not need lossless, but a non-negligible minority very well might, hence why lossless should absolutely be on topic.

▲

dylan604 9 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

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.