Rendered at 07:52:26 GMT+0000 (Coordinated Universal Time) with Cloudflare Workers.
Mindless2112 9 hours ago [-]
> In this Gemini-reconstructed scene, ...
I'm generally pretty pro-AI, but I find this icky. Of course, I wouldn't have noticed except the whiteboard drawing seemed not quite right, so I'll probably be fooled in the future.
mrandish 5 hours ago [-]
Yep, I was totally nerd-sniped by the image. I've never seen an engineer draw a whiteboard diagram anywhere near that detailed and tidy. No acronyms, consistent title case, descenders on a baseline - everything about it is wrong. It's so counter to reality, I seriously wondered if it was a joke.
The Nano Banana team should be pissed Google PR is distributing such a terrible photo. The poses are stilted, expressions frozen, even the eye-lines are off. Why couldn't they just use a Google Pixel phone to snap a photo of real Google engineers in a real Google office and upload it to Google Photos? Not Google enough?
threatripper 2 hours ago [-]
This is why we need smart glasses recording everything you see 24/7 to gather relevant real training data.
zerobees 8 hours ago [-]
Based on what I've heard, Google is monitoring per-org usage and strongly / incessantly encouraging teams to experiment with the technology, so a lot of tokens get spent on pointless stuff like that. The preceding diagram, which is needlessly busy and blurry, appears to be AI-generated too.
markdog12 8 hours ago [-]
Came here to say the same thing. Why add this fake image?
jazzyjackson 4 hours ago [-]
Website Obesity mentioned ! [0]
This project led me to propose the Taft Test:
Does your page design improve when you replace every image with William Howard Taft?
If so, then, maybe all those images aren’t adding a lot to your article. At the very least, leave Taft there! You just admitted it looks better.
Huge fan of JXL, but this article feels pretty AI sloppy. Not much said here, coming from the google blog I was hoping for some news about how they are pushing the format forward by introducing decoders in to Android and enabling on Chrome.
Android is the only mainstream OS that does not support JPEG XL right now.
UnfitFootprint 6 hours ago [-]
Not to mention those IMAGES. Slop diagrams hurt
rowbin 10 hours ago [-]
That's rich coming from the company that tried to kill it. The audacity...
magicalist 9 hours ago [-]
> That's rich coming from the company that tried to kill it
This post is written by three of the authors of the JPEG XL spec, implementors of the reference and rust implementations of libjxl, and...longtime google employees.
fc417fc802 2 hours ago [-]
You say that as though Google isn't notorious for killing their own successful and well received products for seemingly no reason.
It's incontrovertible that Google did attempt to kill browser adoption of jxl at one point. Thankfully they seem to have reversed course.
qingcharles 39 minutes ago [-]
They only reversed under pressure from the Safari and Firefox folks.
The killing of JXL did push the ever-talented Jyrki to create jpegli, which was honestly a wonder.
orbital-decay 9 hours ago [-]
From what I can tell, it's written by Gemini
8 hours ago [-]
rowbin 10 hours ago [-]
> Safari (2023) led among major browsers, while Firefox and Chrome currently maintain experimental support.
spartanatreyu 7 hours ago [-]
Yeah, but they left out that Chrome removed their own support for JPEG XL saying no one in the industry was in favour of it despite everyone seeing it was the future screaming for it and building support for it into their own products.
Chrome's blink was the only major browser engine not supporting it and that prevented it from becoming a web standard and they refused to acknowledge they were wrong.
Chrome only backtracked once jpeg-xl was subsumed into the PDF standard because if Chrome did not support jpeg-xl, they would by extension also not be supporting pdf.
Gigachad 7 hours ago [-]
jpeg xl is also now used for the latest version of the DNG raw image format, and the iphone now encodes raw images as jpeg xl in DNG. It's so clearly the future for photography that Google is holding back. Apple surprisingly has been the first with full support everywhere in their OSs and in Safari.
Caspy7 6 hours ago [-]
Safari is currently lacking animation and progressive decoding - still ahead of everyone else currently.
Looks like by the end of the year we can expect Chrome and Firefox support.
Gigachad 7 hours ago [-]
Maintain in a sense. Google introduced it in Chrome as an experimental flag, then removed it with no real explanation, and only just brought it back.
halapro 48 seconds ago [-]
Which it makes perfect since this it's the same company which "deprecated" MP4 support a long while ago in an effort to push to WebM.
theturtle 9 hours ago [-]
[dead]
taikahessu 2 hours ago [-]
Can someone explain where are we at the image processing world/timeline? Why do coding tools suggest to me .avif and .webp, and the support of these lags in Windows OS and then we have things like JpegXL and Jpeg2000 or whatever others are there flying around? Why is it so hard to find our next "jpg format"?
Gigachad 5 minutes ago [-]
AVIF and webp kind of only exist for the web, they get used when you want to really crunch down on data as much as possible. They aren’t really used for files you’d save on your computer or get out of a camera.
JPEG XL is replacing regular jpeg and heif for photography. It offers 16 bit color rather than 8 from jpeg and HDR support along with a ton of extra features.
Every OS but Android supports it, safari supports it, chrome and Firefox have it behind a beta flag.
gforce_de 57 minutes ago [-]
It's all about licences. If you need the images for the web: go for jpegli, webp and avif - the distance to jpegxl or webp2 is not worth the hassle:
Agree. JXL won't be baseline for at least three years.
_HMCB_ 3 hours ago [-]
Google spearheaded this and yet their browser only has experimental support? While Safari shipped it in 2023? At least, that’s how I’m reading this.
mceachen 3 hours ago [-]
It's worse: Google added and then dropped even experimental support of jxl in 2021-2022. Several years later they adopted the rust jxl library, but have kept it behind experimental flags.
lousken 9 hours ago [-]
Out of experimental when?
Gigachad 7 hours ago [-]
Probably got some time to go. The new rust decoder likely needs more time to be proven reliable and safe, and Firefox doesn't even get the flag to turn it on until the next release 152.
201984 6 hours ago [-]
Mostly off topic, but why is the spec for JPEG and JPEG XL paywalled? I wouldn't call them open standards if they're not available free-of-charge to the public.
ZeroGravitas 1 hours ago [-]
It's a standard ISO Standard thing which could perhaps be justified when standards where printed on paper.
The JPEG XL team released a draft to try to work around this but couldn't avoid it for the official standard release.
Gigachad 5 hours ago [-]
It's an open standard because the concepts and reference implementation are free and open source even if the PDF is paywalled. Realistically you could just pirate the PDF and write a jpeg xl encoder/decoder and your code wouldn't be infringing on any patents.
201984 5 hours ago [-]
Seems "closed but royalty free" would be a more accurate description then.
Gigachad 5 hours ago [-]
Splitting hairs on terminology I guess. Very few people are interested in the PDF that specifies the format vs being able to include decoders in software and on devices without paying a royalty for every device. There are alternative documents and the last draft copy which are free legally. As well as the reference code.
aidenn0 4 hours ago [-]
"Open Standard" means "Anybody is allowed to buy it"
bnolsen 6 hours ago [-]
I personally think something like the qok format is a better way to go. Make something that performs well and is dirt simple to implement.
dimatura 4 minutes ago [-]
QOI supports a VERY limited set of use cases compared to jpegXL.
pezezin 20 minutes ago [-]
QOI is cute as an experiment, but it is not a serious image format unless you work in extremely constrained environments.
LoganDark 6 hours ago [-]
I'm behind -- did Chrome un-remove JXL support? Google is suddenly behind it again? Why/how did they change their minds?
Caspy7 6 hours ago [-]
Yes. They're adding it back to Chrome.
This last January at FOSDEM there was a panel with representatives from different browser companies. During the panel Kadir Topal, a web platform product manager at Google, indicated that because of the interest they saw in JPEG XL through the Interop Project that they changed their course on supporting it.
They added it back as an experimental flag again. Likely the new rust based decoder and adoption in to other platforms and standards changed their decision.
I'm generally pretty pro-AI, but I find this icky. Of course, I wouldn't have noticed except the whiteboard drawing seemed not quite right, so I'll probably be fooled in the future.
The Nano Banana team should be pissed Google PR is distributing such a terrible photo. The poses are stilted, expressions frozen, even the eye-lines are off. Why couldn't they just use a Google Pixel phone to snap a photo of real Google engineers in a real Google office and upload it to Google Photos? Not Google enough?
Here's a blog post by him: https://cloudinary.com/blog/2026-the-year-of-jpeg-xl
Android is the only mainstream OS that does not support JPEG XL right now.
This post is written by three of the authors of the JPEG XL spec, implementors of the reference and rust implementations of libjxl, and...longtime google employees.
It's incontrovertible that Google did attempt to kill browser adoption of jxl at one point. Thankfully they seem to have reversed course.
The killing of JXL did push the ever-talented Jyrki to create jpegli, which was honestly a wonder.
Chrome's blink was the only major browser engine not supporting it and that prevented it from becoming a web standard and they refused to acknowledge they were wrong.
Chrome only backtracked once jpeg-xl was subsumed into the PDF standard because if Chrome did not support jpeg-xl, they would by extension also not be supporting pdf.
Looks like by the end of the year we can expect Chrome and Firefox support.
JPEG XL is replacing regular jpeg and heif for photography. It offers 16 bit color rather than 8 from jpeg and HDR support along with a ton of extra features.
Every OS but Android supports it, safari supports it, chrome and Firefox have it behind a beta flag.
https://show.quicky.club/results/14/f8/f1/d8db84d57222d32db6...
The JPEG XL team released a draft to try to work around this but couldn't avoid it for the official standard release.
This last January at FOSDEM there was a panel with representatives from different browser companies. During the panel Kadir Topal, a web platform product manager at Google, indicated that because of the interest they saw in JPEG XL through the Interop Project that they changed their course on supporting it.
https://github.com/web-platform-tests/interop
The video of the panel can be found at https://fosdem.org/2026/schedule/event/7E7387-browser_in_202... . He starts speaking on the issue at about 13:00