A poll of new image formats and browsers

I want to add an image file format to the thumbnails on my site, you know, one invented in this century. In particular, I want to see how many of you have outdated insecure browsers that won't even display half these images. Reply with browser, and which of these worked/failed. Examples - these should display, not download: >1 Animated WebP - https://mathiasbynens.be/demo/animated-webp >2 Animated AVIF (must flash red!) - https://tests.caniuse.com/red-green-sequence.avif >3 Animated JPEG XL - https://jpegxl.info/anim_jxl_logo.jxl if those don't work: >4 WebP - https://tests.caniuse.com/green5x5.webp >5 AVIF - https://tests.caniuse.com/image.avif >6 JPEG XL - https://jpegxl.info/logo.jxl

note: the reason why I am polling and not just using tools like caniuse.com is that my site is more likely to be visited by FOSS/privacy/customisation fans who use niche browsers like Pale Moon and the other Firefox derivatives. So I want to get a more realistic idea of how many users might not be able to see each of these formats.

>>70619 >plz test my exploits Using tor browser with no javascript because I don't trust your fed ass. >1 Animated WebP Good. >2 Animated AVIF (must flash red!) Only displays green box. >3 Animated JPEG XL Triggered a download. >4 WebP Good. >5 AVIF Good. >6 JPEG XL Triggered a download.

>>70619 Animated WebP: broken Animated AVIF: worked Animated JXL: have to download WebP: broken AVIF: worked JXL: have to download

>>70621 got the same with librewolf

On that subject, when will lainchan at least support webp?

>>70619 >1 Animated WebP - works >2 Animated AVIF (must flash red!) - broken >3 Animated JPEG XL - triggers a download >4 WebP - works >5 AVIF - works >6 JPEG XL - triggers a download using safari on ios 16.6 public beta 3

Fennec F-Droid >Animated Webp Works >Animated AVIF Works >Animated JPEG XL Download >Webp Works >Avif Works >JPEG XL Download

pale memes: >1 Animated WebP animated >2 Animated AVIF (must flash red!) download doesn't work >3 Animated JPEG XL download but works

Google Chrome. Animated Webp, works. Animated AVIF, downloads. Animated JXL, downloads. Webp, works. AVIF, downloads. JXL, downloads.

>>70624 Hopefully never. It's a soykaf format pushed by Google that belongs in the dustbin of history.

Palemoon v32.2 here WebP works just fine AVIF doesn't load in anything and tries to download a file JXL tries to download a file when linked directly, however it loads and animates perfectly fine when embedded as an element in a page. Worth noting that WebP and AVIF were both temporary stops on a journey of improving old web formats whose utilities were confined to small niches of superiority, while JPEG XL can truly supercede JPEG, PNG, and GIF all in a single format.

>>70621 If I were testing vulns, I'd just DIY the target browser/s. If it's the sites or images you don't trust, you can use ImageMagick or ffmpeg to make your own ones and report those results. >>70622 >Animated WebP: broken >Animated AVIF: worked This is a surprising combo. Have you done any custom config stuff to boycott WebP? Either that or I guess it's some weird "we hate google so much we disabled it" browser variant. >>70628 >AVIF, downloads. lolwat it's been supported in >chrome for 3 years now, how does this happen. >>70624 I would push for AVIF once it gets more support. Lots of people here will get understandably touchy about tolerating the spread of a format by Google (as if we aren't already accepting WebM), and I think it's close enough to be considered to have wide support. That said, see below. >>70632 Yeah, WebP and AVIF are both really just image formats based on video formats (WebM and AV1) and they suffer for it, JPEG XL in almost all cases just blows them out of the water. It's unfortunate that Mozilla is officially 'neutral' and Chromium removed their experimental support for it late last year for bullshit reasons. WebP and then AVIF are both notable improvements over JPEG/PNG/GIF and already worth considering for things like thumbnails and static manually-added web images as a temporary step, but if we could just adopt an image format designed as an image format, that would be great. Plus things like lossless, reversible upgrade of lossy JPEG

>>70621 >>70623 to my understanding, Tor will soon become up-to-date with FF when the new ESR bumps which I think means this will soon have #2 Anim AVIF loading. Librewolf would probably have it working either already-or-soon: >LibreWolf is always based on the latest version of Firefox. Updates usually come within three days from each upstream stable release, at times even the same day.

>>70619 all of these work on librewolf except for jxl

>>70640 >it's been supported in >chrome for 3 years now, how does this happen. I dunno, could it be because of uMatrix or uBlock? Much else of special I do not have. Version 114.0.5735.134 (Official Build) (64-bit)

>>70690 It's definitely not the version, it's been supported since version 32 (2014). Plus, Google invented the format so of course they will support it. It would be weird if uBlock or uMatrix blocked some and not the other, but I'm only really familiar with noscript.

animated AVIF doesn't work, jxl apparently doesn't work at all :( is there some kind of compile-time flag for firefox that adds in JXL support?

>>70700 Currently it's only available in nightly builds: >To support JXL images, you have to do the following: >Download the Nightly version of Firefox. >Enter about:config inside the URL bar. >Look for the setting image.jxl.enabled. >Set it to true by clicking the button on the right. >Then, restart your browser It's a pretty new emerging format and doesn't have the industry backing that AV1->AVIF has, so most browsers don't support by default (the very recent Safari beta, or something, may be the only one). There is definitely industry support from big names like FB and Adobe but it's not the same.

Palemoon gets a lot of soykaf from webanons--some justified, some not--but I hope we can at least agree that its early full support for JXL is admirable.

dillo: - elinks: - qutebrowser: 14 w3m: 4 vimb: 14 brave: 1

>>70708 I'll raise a glass to that. >>70710 Cool! I'm surprised Brave isn't getting AVIF since it's Chromium-based. I wasn't expecting much in the modern graphics front from dillo, but I wasn't sure if it would or wouldn't have WebP yet like w3m.

Firefox WebP and AVIf worked (animated and unanimated)

using firefox nightly 120a1 all work though the jxls needed to be downloaded then viewed

>>70619 tor browser with javascript disabled 1. Works 2. Flashes red and green 3. Not downloading that soykaf 4. Works 5. Works 6. More malware

>>73475 >tor browser with javascript disabled JavaScript shouldn't be relevant, this is just image viewing, no polyfills or anything. Tor Browser 13.0 moved to Mozilla Firefox 115.4.0esr, so the animated AVIF now works. (Malware isn't when your browser can't view an image and offers to download it instead. Learn about JPEG-XL, it's pretty cool.) >>73474 Nightly has a special `image.jxl.enabled` flag in about:config, if you ever need to load one.

No JXL on librefoxwolfshit. Everything else works.

>>73547 >>73758 >image.jxl.enabled Now JXL displays and autodownloads too.

>>73474 Pretty much the same. Firefox Nightly with JPEGXL enabled automatically download and view. Firefox Nightly with JPEGXL disabled just downloads them and doesn't view. All other formats can be viewed without download. Firefox Nightly 123.0a1

>I want to add an image file format to the thumbnails on my site, you know, one invented in this century. Why? jpeg, png and webm is good enough. If you're editing an image 600 times you should use a lossless format or else keep the original image and edit that. If you're doing real work you'll use some intermediate format (psd, exr etc.) Completely contrived use case. Why add all this bloat for 2% more efficient compression or whatever?