Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

macOS 14 will support JPEG XL

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 123 posts

Re: macOS 14 will support JPEG XL

#81

Post by neandrake »

kstrauser wrote: post #51
concise_unicorn wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Lots of metadata about the image scan. Patient name/id, etc. and often physics related to the image scan such as the voxel size, units, properties of the imaging equipment, etc. DICOM is also used for other data that isn’t directly related to the visual image such as segmentation of the image, radiotherapy planning info, and so on. There are hundreds of dicom tags (the metadata entries) that can be in the dataset.

Re: macOS 14 will support JPEG XL

#82

Post by cjawdb »

zamadatix wrote: post #35
qingcharles wrote: post #3

And Google just (sadly) pulled support from Chrome. Your move, Google.

Firefox came to the conclusion they didn't really care too so it's not just Google that is iffy about it. With Apple pushing it now... maybe that will change things in the long run?

Firefox has next to zero marketshare (unfortunately and despite my best efforts to get people to use FF). There was never any chance that Mozilla was going to waste their very limited resources attempting to be the early adopters of an image codec when nobody is going to use it on the web until the browser engine with de facto control over the market starts supporting it.

Re: macOS 14 will support JPEG XL

#83

Post by spiralpolitik »

woah wrote: post #12
PaulHoule wrote: post #5

Earlier 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?

On MacOS/iOS the ImageIO framework handles encoding and decoding images. Adding support for your image format to that framework means everything else just works once the image is decoded.

Another framework, CoreImage, provides generic operations to filter and transform images decoded by ImageIO. This provides hardware acceleration and other good stuff that make things like CSS transforms super fast and efficient.

While it can be done in JavaScript it would be much much slower, less efficient, and kill your battery.

Re: macOS 14 will support JPEG XL

#84

Post by aidenn0 »

JPEG XL is the first image format in over a decade that has shown real quality improvements for high-frequency images (i.e. sharp edges). JPEG 2000 is competitive with all of the video codec I-frame formats I've tried, and you can embed them in PDFs unmodified, so I've not troubled with anything new.

Re: macOS 14 will support JPEG XL

#85

Post by lonjil »

DannyBee wrote: post #74
derefr wrote: post #34

Earlier 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 number of people in this thread pretending they have more expertise about this, and spreading random conspiracy theories about WebP, is impressive. Actually, Google employs 2 of the 3 main authors of the JPEG XL spec, and the main contributors to libjxl. Also, it wasn't a few months, and others had explicitly said no. You can argue it was a dumb decision, but like, can we at least get facts straight instead of ma…

> Actually, Google employs 2 of the 3 main authors of the JPEG XL spec, and the main contributors to libjxl.

> There people in this thread arguing they have no idea what they are doing and have no expertise, while they simultaneously employ the spec authors to work on it and are one of the two primary contributors to the reference library.

Google is not a monolith. The JXL people are at Google Research Zurich, while the people who decided to not include JXL in Chrome are members of the Chrome team. The Chrome team obviously does not employ the people over in Zurich, nor do they presumably control what they work on.

Re: macOS 14 will support JPEG XL

#86

Post by kps »

rpbiwer2 wrote: post #70
kps wrote: post #4

Excellent. JPEG XL is a usable general-purpose image format, not just a passive delivery format like WebP and AVIF.

I'm not very familiar with media encoding formats. What makes webp and avif well suited for delivery but not general purpose?

They're suited for delivery because they're based on video codecs (WebP on VP8, AVIF on AV1) for which consumer hardware typically has hardware decoding support, but were not designed for still images. AVIF is newer and substantially better than WebP, but still has limited colour depth and channels, so it's comparatively poor for editing. Lossless mode is not good for non-photo content. Encoding is relatively slow without hardware support.

Re: macOS 14 will support JPEG XL

#87

Post by Dalewyn »

cjawdb wrote: post #82
zamadatix wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Firefox came to the conclusion they didn't really care too so it's not just Google that is iffy about it. With Apple pushing it now... maybe that will change things in the long run?

Firefox has next to zero marketshare (unfortunately and despite my best efforts to get people to use FF). There was never any chance that Mozilla was going to waste their very limited resources attempting to be the early adopters of an image codec when nobody is going to use it on the web until the browser engine with de facto control over the market starts supporting it.

>never any chance that Mozilla was going to waste their very limited resources

Mozilla is many things, but "limited resources" Mozilla is not.

That is if they would stop paying their CEO their entire coffer, anyway.

>be the early adopters of an image codec when nobody is going to use it on the web until the browser engine with de facto control over the market starts supporting it.

The exact opposite mentality was how Firefox and then Chrome usurped the throne from Internet Explorer. Firefox is never going to usurp anything again so long as Mozilla is content to play second and third fiddle.

Re: macOS 14 will support JPEG XL

#88

Post by est »

PaulHoule wrote: post #5
amoerie wrote: post #2

As 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…

> publish photos on the web that look like they came out of a mirrorless camera I want JPEG XL

Any comparision photos out there?

Re: macOS 14 will support JPEG XL

#89

Post by lonjil »

kps wrote: post #86
rpbiwer2 wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not very familiar with media encoding formats. What makes webp and avif well suited for delivery but not general purpose?

They're suited for delivery because they're based on video codecs (WebP on VP8, AVIF on AV1) for which consumer hardware typically has hardware decoding support, but were not designed for still images. AVIF is newer and substantially better than WebP, but still has limited colour depth and channels, so it's comparatively poor for editing. Lossless mode is not good for non-photo content. Encoding is relatively slow wi…

> They're suited for delivery because they're based on video codecs (WebP on VP8, AVIF on AV1) for which consumer hardware typically has hardware decoding support,

But no one is doing HW decode for web images. (other than maybe Apple with JPEG? I've seen conflicting reports). AVIF images that aren't actually videos are always software decoded.

Re: macOS 14 will support JPEG XL

#90

Post by zamadatix »

cjawdb wrote: post #82
zamadatix wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Firefox came to the conclusion they didn't really care too so it's not just Google that is iffy about it. With Apple pushing it now... maybe that will change things in the long run?

Firefox has next to zero marketshare (unfortunately and despite my best efforts to get people to use FF). There was never any chance that Mozilla was going to waste their very limited resources attempting to be the early adopters of an image codec when nobody is going to use it on the web until the browser engine with de facto control over the market starts supporting it.

Mozilla had already implemented it in Firefox Nightly before coming to the neutral conclusion in the standards process.
Post reply on HN