XnView Software

I am happy that JPEG XL is there (I consider it in general the better format), but AVIF should be there as well. Why?

- if you want to make as small web site as possible right now (and not in 3-5 years when hopefully JXL encoders would be in all browsers) AVIF is the only alternative. All modern ...

+1

user0 wrote: Sat Jul 19, 2025 4:04 am use Export dialog

Hmm... I had almost forgotten that it exists. You are right it seems to have this feature. I will study it.

BUT AVIF is missing from export dialogue. Is this intended behaviour or bug, Pierre? All others are there that are chosen in Settings - Formats.

xnview wrote: notif quote

Hi. I am not sure if I put this already somewhere else but didn't find it.

Some programs (Affinity, Photoshop?, Image Toolbox, etc..) tell in save dialouge/settings the estimated size of file to be saved. It would be very handy feature for xnmp as you wouldn't have to save multiple files and then ...

I changed my plans and am now planning to convert everything to JPEG XL (quality = 80). Actually did already small portion of it (1000-2000 pics) but still hesitating with the rest 38 000 - 39 000.

JXL q80 gives considerable savings. There is a tiny bit of quality loss but you will not even notice ...

Way to reproduce (windows 11, xnmp 1.9.2.)

- double click mp4 file in file explorer, wait for couple of seconds
- double click another mp4 file in file explorer
- double click again the original mp4 file in file explorer


expected behaviour?

- on third double click original file plays from start ...

Wouldn't it be better to wait with mass conversations to JXL until the JPEG XL encoder is finalized?


I was living under the impression that it is already finalized.


Are you talking a developer into implementing a feature that is non-standard just to match your personal work flow ...

Shrinking a collection to smaller jxl or avif collection (if you know what you are doing) is max 30 minutes to initialize and test batches and then you let the computer run overnight, or longer and it is ready.

Browsing through lets say 40k images that I have for ones that have wrong orientation ...

There is one question that puzzles me. Why not encode the image with the desired orientation in first place?
Why all the hazzle with image orientation tags?

Why not rotate the image accordingly before encoding to JPEG XL?


I think I explained this in some other thread but if you have collection ...

From libjpegxl
in the case of Exif orientation, this field has to be ignored by applications, since the orientation in the codestream always takes precedence


Now I found this:

https://libjxl.readthedocs.io/en/latest/api_metadata.html#_CPPv414JxlOrientation

Can these values be read and/or ...

https://1drv.ms/u/c/9ae6b4fc77ec78a7/EW84rpcGVkhLgplzTxWxUoEB5Vm9sz59ez65ccb-yychPg?e=Ghk41q


From libjpegxl
in the case of Exif orientation, this field has to be ignored by applications, since the orientation in the codestream always takes precedence


I read that also somewhere. Anyway ...

I am not sure what was issue here as I don't see the images but most recent XNMP version ignores Jpeg XL exif orientation value

please send us some sample files


Hi Pierre. Here are more sample files of a bit related problem. If I convert file to JXL with magick (imagemagick) and then copy ...

Thats not a proper solution, golemus, imo. When it comes to interoperability with other software that handles JXL files as the standard demands.
Maybe ask a developer of JPEG XL where the orientation flag is located in the bitstream?


Problem is that there seems to be yet no apps that can do the ...

xnview wrote: Thu Jun 01, 2023 2:11 pm it seems that you should install "Media Feature Pack for N"

I just run into this on test installation.

Improvement suggestion: modify the error message so that it notifies of missing media feature pack so that user will know faster what he needs to do to get the program working.

WinnieW wrote: Fri Jul 04, 2025 9:17 am Problem in this case: JPEG XL is free to use, however the JXL format specification is not for free.

OK. It gives me (IMO) even more reason to add support for EXIF orientation until specs become more accessible to implement rotation/orientation in the way that JXL developers had intended.