Nope. It’s the best thing out there atm.
It’s just big tech wanting to control the IP
Why everyone is all up in arms about the fact that the industry is finally standardizing on a good royalty-free image format is beyond me.
If we were picking a single royalty-free image codec for the 2018-2026 range, it should be JXL.
Image encoding is a subset of video encoding, so any limits are mostly arbitrary, and in AV1's case image-only encoding was a consideration from the start. AVIF in particular supports color depths up to 12 bits, wide color gamuts, many color spaces and standards for color space signaling, etc., so I'm curious what aspect you consider limited.
This isn't true. There are a number of things that make sense for images but not videos. 1. Progressive rendering. 2. Big images (up to 2^30 by 2^30) 3. More channels (up to 4099) (this can be useful for transparency, depth, or tracking random other things for scientific purposes) 5. High bit depth (up to 32 bit) (this is mostly useful for sciency stuff) 4. Lossless encoding. Basically no one wants lossless video (it's way too big), but lossless images often make sense.
12-bit is fine for delivery, but it's not enough for authoring. Cameras are typically 14-bit and during authoring you'll want some footroom on top of that.
Also avif is not usable for lossless: it is slower than png and often worse. Lossless is crucial for authoring workflows.
For high-fidelity lossy compression, avif can be worse than even jpeg.
Avif cannot do CMYK at all, so for printing use cases it is not usable.
Basically it is targeted at web delivery, but it's not really a general-purpose image format that can be applied in a broad range of use cases.
Forget lossless originals, this is about the average images that users see online, like 1000x1000 (or smaller) and 200kb (or so).
As the head of tech for a site with a few tb of user-supplied jpeg files (which are thumbnailed), I can see the appeal…
As Mozilla put it, adopting a new format increase the attack surface ( that is already quite large ) of a browser, they can not simply take the reference decoder and integrate it into their codebase, they also have to use resources toward maintaining it. Firefox currently integrate jxl support behind an experimental flag, but that could mean the feature is in testing and could be deprecated in order to better allocate their resources.
Why can’t they take the reference decoder?
As for the attack surface, why would their own codes be less vulnerable?
They don’t tend to support each other’s codecs either, not because of attack surface