Earlier quoted context omitted.
I am suuuper ignorant on the subject, but is this something that could replace DICOM?
No, DICOM is a container format that can contain JPEG XL image data
Ah, I see. What does the contain provide other than image data?
macOS 14 will support JPEG XL
51–60 of 123 posts
Re: macOS 14 will support JPEG XL
#52As a radiology software developer: please please let JPEG XL become a thing. I sincerely hope this might make Chrome change its mind. JPEG XL is a game changer for 16 bit lossless images. The technical landscape for these kinds of images today is barren.
I am suuuper ignorant on the subject, but is this something that could replace DICOM?
Not an expert either by far, but DICOM isn't just images, it's a much larger data structure and following protocol, which deals with the transmission of the data between devices as well. The files are just one part of it. It also supports more dimensions to the data frames other than 2D. The pixel data in DICOM itself uses JPEG however (among other potential pixel compression methods), and it is possible that JPEG XL rolled into DICOM could allow for benefits.
Re: macOS 14 will support JPEG XL
#53I'm trying to understand the motivation here. There's a few new image formats as potential candidates: jpeg xl, webp v2, avif, heic. Apple already had heic in the os, but still not Safari AFAIK. Avif has the benefit of hardware encoders/decoders (with limited chroma options though).
I see the HDR mentioned in other comments which is interesting.
Are there any (potential conspiracy) reasons they would choose not to go for another format?
I'm trying to understand how they arrived at this answer given it was available for years and ignored in popular software.
Re: macOS 14 will support JPEG XL
#54Earlier quoted context omitted.
They did all the work required to implement it, sat around for a few months, and then removed it , before anyone else even noticed it was there / had a chance to start integrating it. My personal conspiracy theory is that some Google engineer who works on Chrome, came up with "JPEG XL support" as a feature they could work on, pushed it through to prod, patted themselves on the back, and forgot about it; but this was…
The work wasn't done by anyone on the Chrome team. Someone at Google Research Zurich (I don't recall who) wrote the patches and submitted them. Actually, I think that they've even kept the patches up to date with newer Chrome releases so in theory it would be easy to re-introduce JXL into Chrome if there is a will to do it...
Added in https://crrev.com/c/2749318
Re: macOS 14 will support JPEG XL
#55I'm trying to understand the motivation here. There's a few new image formats as potential candidates: jpeg xl, webp v2, avif, heic. Apple already had heic in the os, but still not Safari AFAIK. Avif has the benefit of hardware encoders/decoders (with limited chroma options though). I see the HDR mentioned in other comments which is interesting. Are there any (potential conspiracy) reasons they would choose not to go…
The big feature JPEG XL offers that HEIC and AVIF do not is lossless filesize reduction for JPEG images (such as those produced by basically every non-iphone camera).
Also AVIF and HEIC as specified don't support >8k images.
Re: macOS 14 will support JPEG XL
#56As a radiology software developer: please please let JPEG XL become a thing. I sincerely hope this might make Chrome change its mind. JPEG XL is a game changer for 16 bit lossless images. The technical landscape for these kinds of images today is barren.
Does it really matter? These days decoding image with JS or Wasm should be fine. It's not video.
https://giannirosato.com/blog/post/nvenc-v-qsv/ This site has WASM-decoded JXL images using JXL.js. Native support would be much faster, & trying to decode much larger images with JXL.js doesn’t work very well.
Re: macOS 14 will support JPEG XL
#57And Google just (sadly) pulled support from Chrome. Your move, Google.
Can't it be enabled via an extension? Similar to how media players support third party codec.
It can be, but not perfectly.
Firefox: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/jxl/?utm_sour...
Chrome: https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/add-jxl-support/kh...
Re: macOS 14 will support JPEG XL
#58Good. I can't believe the Google argument for removal, being in effect "it's only slightly better in every single way than all the other formats we support, and not enough people jumped though the hoops to manually opt into it, so we're removing it entirely."
Re: macOS 14 will support JPEG XL
#59Earlier quoted context omitted.
As a mirrorless photographer who wants to publish photos on the web that look like they came out of a mirrorless camera I want JPEG XL. In trials I've done, AVIF works well for a throwaway splash image for a blog but compression results are not so impressive compared to JPEG or WEBP if you want the image to hold up under close inspection. On the other hand there is something that seems almost infantile about image su…
Dumb question, but why is OS or browser support necessary? Couldn't an HTML canvas element and some JS that can parse the file format display any kind of image that you might want?
There's a JS/WASM polyfill for JXL, but it involves some fragile hacks like MutationObserver and canvas writes, has worse performance than native code, and tends to crash Chrome.
Re: macOS 14 will support JPEG XL
#60As a radiology software developer: please please let JPEG XL become a thing. I sincerely hope this might make Chrome change its mind. JPEG XL is a game changer for 16 bit lossless images. The technical landscape for these kinds of images today is barren.
As a mirrorless photographer who wants to publish photos on the web that look like they came out of a mirrorless camera I want JPEG XL. In trials I've done, AVIF works well for a throwaway splash image for a blog but compression results are not so impressive compared to JPEG or WEBP if you want the image to hold up under close inspection. On the other hand there is something that seems almost infantile about image su…
There’s just not a lot left besides user experience and appearance for an OS to do.
Of course kennels and operating systems are highly complex and represent a ton of work… but what is left to impress with a press release?
My OS does everything I can imagine needing it to and the only thing I can imagine wanting it to do going forward is more or less just maintenance (UX/UI excluded)