Let’s see what browsers/apps actually support animated JPEG-XL files! And in case it isn’t working for you, here is a still shot from this animation, in a widely-supported format:

BVo9MLVuZHYMEWA.webp

Also, I could not find a reputable source to explain exactly what the X in JPEG-XL actually stands for, so I just went with “extensible”, a la XML.

  • Eldritch@piefed.worldEnglish
    1·
    19 days ago

    The answer is unfortunately almost nothing. Safari should MAYBE support it a bit. Current release versions of Firefox and Chrome don’t even support static jxl out of the box. Though static can be enabled in release versions of Firefox, possibly chrome too. But not automatically enabled in both. They really need to get hopping on this. JXL is pretty great generally. And gif really does need replacing. Though I’m not sure mp4 with something like av1 or h264 wouldn’t be as good or better for animation.

    • brucethemoose@lemmy.world
      2·
      19 days ago

      It doesn’t work in Chromium at all, only in forks that hack it back in like Thorium.

      Firefox needs a flag enabled in about:config, yes.

      …And yeah. Realistically, a low framerate AV1 (or AVC) webm is more optimal for this, better supported, and will perform better on a lot of hardware. TBH JXL should drop the animation stuff and focus on static images (which it’s incredible at) and HDR support.

      • Eldritch@piefed.worldEnglish
        2·
        19 days ago

        Yes Google has really been the biggest one fighting against jxl. Mozilla has flirted with it a lot. Mostly dropping it because of the perceived peer pressure.

        • brucethemoose@lemmy.world
          2·
          19 days ago

          Yeah, it’s ridiculous.

          All the AI stuff they’re shipping in Chrome, and the concern with JXL is security/attack surface? That’s a total lie. It’s so much better than AVIF for certain niches, and it’s already supported by Apple.