Comment by von_lohengramm

Comment by von_lohengramm a day ago

1 reply

> JXL's theoretical maximum image size is bigger.

This is all fine and good until you actually try encoding such an image with libjxl. What an absolute garbage codebase. I'm sure it's gotten better since I've last used it, but it's impressive how unoptimized, memory hungry, and of course wildly unsafe/crashy it was. Many of the options just completely didn't work, either due to exponential performance, crashes, or weird special-casing that breaks the moment you encode anything that's dissimilar from the sample images used in the sham benchmark made by the libjxl creators. I don't even think a high resolution image had ever been successfully encoded on higher effort levels, since I doubt that anyone trying to do so had the terabytes of RAM required.

I was genuinely flabbergasted when there was mass support for reviving it a couple years ago. I don't think anyone advocating for it has actually used libjxl at all and were just internet hypemen. That seems to happen all too often nowadays.

This all being said, I'm mildly optimistic for a retry with jxl-rs. However, seeing much of the same contributors from libjxl on jxl-rs does make me quite cautious.

plantain a day ago

I have no idea what you are talking about. I archive petabytes of space imagery with libjxl on maximum compression, effortlessly.