Nobody has brought it up yet, but JPEG XL seems to be close in potential and flexibility to OpenEXR. It seems more a competitor to something like that--for use in image processing and digital art pipelines--than something like JPEG, WEBP, or PNG.

That said, I have converted my personal JPEGs to JPEG XL, because you can losslessly convert back and forth between the two for smaller filesize in JPEG XL with no quality loss, so I get free storage savings and can get the byte-for-byte original JPEG back if I need it.

▲

doodlesdev 5 hours ago | parent [-]

I knew about the lossless JPEG to JPEG XL compression story before, but had no idea that it was a two-way road. That's truly f* impressive. Boggles my mind even more the fact this format hasn't been adopted widely yet.

	▲	magicalhippo 4 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		JPEG is a lossy frequency-space compression stage followed by a lossless Huffman coding stage. The second stage is quite generic as such, essentially compressing a stream of bits. So you can relatively easily replace the second stage with something better. And since it's lossless you can easily go back. Dropbox[1] and others have exploited this for reducing storage requirements, converting back on-demand so the client doesn't notice. https://github.com/dropbox/lepton
	▲	jaffathecake 3 hours ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		Because what you save in terms of storage, you pay for in decode time, which is an important consideration on the web.
	▲	jbverschoor 3 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		byte-for-byte identical file actually. Not just imagery. You can basically save 30% without loosing ANY bit of the original file