2026-09-15 20:41 UTC
@gianni@disobey.net @nhoizey@mamot.fr from what I understand (and I’m not an expert, so I’m happy to learn here), JPEG-XL can get you closer to RAW in terms of what features the format supports (higher resolution and color depth), so if you want to hang onto the most data from the cameras that you can, it sounds like JPEG-XL works better as a source file than AVIF.
So not to say AVIF wouldn’t work here, but knowing that JPEG-XL is on the way to full browser support, that’s the one I’d like to see camera makers adopt as a replacement for JPEG.
Replies (2)
-
@fvsch@hachyderm.io 2026-09-15 22:19
@wbrowar@hachyderm.io @gianni@disobey.net @nhoizey@mamot.fr And DNG 1.7 with JXL compression instead of their proprietary raw formats, please.
-
@gianni@disobey.net 2026-09-15 22:28
@wbrowar@hachyderm.io @nhoizey@mamot.fr I still think 12-bit AVIF could look fine, and that massive authoring files being displayed online is anti-user and not a compelling use case compared to hosting the file download with a preview.