Firefox 152 Now Available with JPEG-XL Support

Posted by eln1 1 day ago

Counter50Comment13OpenOriginal

Comments

Comment by ksec 1 day ago

Considering Apple's support and product cycle. You are looking at a Billion devices supporting JPEG XL between now and end of next year. It might be low in percentage, but it is still a substantial number.

Comment by y2244 1 day ago

As an aside - My Firefox updated the other day and now has no sign up VPN built in with multiple countries available to choose. Very welcome feature.

Comment by jadecarter68 1 day ago

I've been testing JPEG-XL on nightly, it's a lifesaver for high-res photos. Half the size of PNG with no quality loss.

Comment by nateb2022 1 day ago

What sites already are using JPEG-XL en masse?

Comment by intelkishan 1 day ago

How is the support for JPEG-XL across other browsers and local photo viewer applications?

Comment by eln1 1 day ago

Sure, most, see e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JPEG_XL#Official_software_supp...

Comment by esperent 1 day ago

> As of 2026, web browsers that support JPEG XL had 14% market share

From your link.

Comment by throawayonthe 1 day ago

https://caniuse.com/jpeg

huh, yeah, says 14.12%... i could have sworn it's on by default in chromium now? it worked in my browser!

nevermind, i had the flag enabled previously :/

https://jpegxl.info/resources/jpeg-xl-test-page.html

Comment by brokenmachine 1 day ago

https://caniuse.com/?search=jpeg-xl

Doesn't look very good.

Comment by eln1 1 day ago

Waiting for enabled by default in Firefox (already in nightly 153) and Chrome (hopefully this year).

Comment by nextaccountic 1 day ago

Is there any hardware accelerated jpeg xl implementation? Like VA-API's VAProfileJPEGBaseline for jpeg

Comment by throawayonthe 1 day ago

could you tell more/point to resources about hw-accel jpegs? does it make a difference for some sort of pipeline/batch operations or 'normal' use too? are there issues with some jpeg features being unsupported? i haven't heard almost anything about this

Comment by nextaccountic 9 hours ago

it's a throughput thing yes, or in my case it's also a desire to not hog the cpu with bulk image processing

features like progressive jpegs and some color spaces aren't supported. I think it could be but it isn't and not sure why

jpegs found in the wild will typically not make use of hardware acceleration or use just it for a subset of the decoding (not sure about the details). browsers didn't bother using hardware acceleration for jpegs just for the images that can be processed fine

so it is meant for jpegs you control rather than jpegs you find on the web. unless you convert them yourself