XnView Software

Yeah, guetzli relies mainly on butteraugli. Jpegli also to some degree. So in some areas the results are similar but with guetzli other areas get blocky where with jpegli it doesn't.
Jpegli seems pretty mature.

So waiting with hope for jpegli "from the box"

See issue for current status and some details.

I hope, Pierre, that we can choose XYB color space (cjpegli ... --xyb), because it gives better quality with smaller file to YUV color space.

Kadet wrote: Fri Apr 05, 2024 11:58 am I hope, Pierre, that we can choose XYB color space (cjpegli ... --xyb), because it gives better quality with smaller file to YUV color space.

first version will be only YUV

This problem is supposed to be fixed in XnView MP 1.7.1. Please check and confirm the bug fix here.

OK. It's work in option "save As" and "Multi convert", but first I have to set ON this codec in Settings.

Thank you so much for the very fast solution to save JPEG files with the new JPEGLI encoder.
It saves so much time in my periodically conversion workflows. Fantastic.

The new jpegli encoder is a little bit hidden in the settings menu.
First you must disable the standard jpeg library and active the jpegli jpg format in settings menu.
Then it works perfect.

Just for my understanding. Why may be the Xnview file bigger?
Here is what i mean. The Xnview file is 200kB bigger but the pure picture data must be the same
since jpegtran creates identical files out of out_cjpegli.jpg and out_Xnview.jpg

original.jpg 100% = 4.314.392 Bytes

cjpegli original.jpg out_cjpegli.jpg -q 86 --chroma_subsampling=420 = 2.686.324 Bytes

Xnview setting out_Xnview.jpg = 2.835.536 Bytes jpegtran -optimize -progressive = 2.682.717 Bytes for both! output files

pokuly wrote: Tue Apr 09, 2024 2:05 pm Just for my understanding. Why may be the Xnview file bigger?

please send me original, and 2 outputs file

I confirm.

Smaller HD images have about 2kb difference. The larger test 4K image has a 27 kb difference.

I did one more test — In XnView I turned off the Progressive option, which should result in a file that is a few kilos larger. It wasn't bigger. Therefore, I conclude that the selected Progressive option does not translate into jpegli parameters in XnView.
In cjpegli this is the "-p N" parameter N = 0..2.
When I added "-p 0" to cjpegli, the file grew to the size produced by XnView,

Kadet wrote: Tue Apr 09, 2024 8:13 pm I did one more test — In XnView I turned off the Progressive option, which should result in a file that is a few kilos larger. It wasn't bigger. Therefore, I conclude that the selected Progressive option does not translate into jpegli parameters in XnView.
In cjpegli this is the "-p N" parameter N = 0..2.
When I added "-p 0" to cjpegli, the file grew to the size produced by XnView,

right, i'll update it

Nice! Should have spotted that myself.