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

91–100 of 123 posts

Re: macOS 14 will support JPEG XL

#91

Post by adgjlsfhk1 »

zamadatix wrote: post #8
kps wrote: post #4

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

Could you explain how so? JPEG XL seems cool enough but what about e.g. AVIF makes it "just a passive delivery format" instead of a general-purpose image format? It handles color spaces, lossless, lossy, up to 12 bit, up to 4:4:4/RGB, transparency, and animation at a good quality/size ratio so what's so drastically different about JPEG XL to move them to separate categories?

the tldr is that video formats are relationship mediocre for images because the tradeoffs you make to compress an image that will be seen for 1/60th of a second are different than those for a static image.

Re: macOS 14 will support JPEG XL

#92

Post by twotwotwo »

alwillis wrote: post #71
twotwotwo wrote: post #44

I hope it shows up in Safari and that this sign of interest from others gets it a second shot in Chrome. Just the JPEG recompression is arguably worth the price of entry; it's less savings than AVIF, of course, but it's easier to adopt now , where re-encoding everything as AVIF is a much larger hump to get over. Its other modes provide some real benefits for users for very-high-quality and lossless images as well as…

> I hope it shows up in Safari and that this sign of interest from others gets it a second shot in Chrome. I'm pretty sure the Chrome team knew at the time they dropped JPEG XL that there was a decent chance Apple would implement it--there's certainly enough of a backchannel between the browser teams at Google, Apple, Mozilla and Microsoft.

Yeah, that is all odd to me; Google cited lack of "interest from the entire ecosystem" (https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=117805...). Mozilla also had an experimental JXL implemenation out there. I'd hope, like you said, that the browser vendors had enough of a backchannel to keep a good thing from fizzling because each is uncertain if the others will implement it.

But if the Chrome folks did know they had all three major browser engines were ready to go, along with the positive noises from Facebook, Adobe, other parts of Google, and a few other notable folks, that seems like a solid base of support, unless you're really expecting the world to go all-in on a format before a browser supports it without a flag. So I guess I wonder if it's that the Chrome team had set the bar high, that they hadn't expected Apple to support JXL at the time they made the call, or something else.

Re: macOS 14 will support JPEG XL

#93

Post by [deleted] »

schrmh wrote: post #77
twotwotwo wrote: post #44

I hope it shows up in Safari and that this sign of interest from others gets it a second shot in Chrome. Just the JPEG recompression is arguably worth the price of entry; it's less savings than AVIF, of course, but it's easier to adopt now , where re-encoding everything as AVIF is a much larger hump to get over. Its other modes provide some real benefits for users for very-high-quality and lossless images as well as…

»it's less savings than AVIF, of course,« In most cases JPEG XL will save you more than AVIF.

[deleted]

Re: macOS 14 will support JPEG XL

#94

Post by simondotau »

bick_nyers wrote: post #21
vbezhenar wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does it really matter? These days decoding image with JS or Wasm should be fine. It's not video.

Video is not lossless, a second of high quality video might be a total of 5 megabytes. A mammogram on the other hand, might be 300 images of lossless 4k resolution, which could clock in at about 2 gigabytes. That could be per breast in a given study, and a study could have prior mammograms attached as well. You will hit memory limits, so you need to be able to unload and load data intelligently and quickly.

Image compression for mammograms seems like a thing ideally suited to a straightforward ML task — a model trained to classify sections of an image which are outside of the area of relevance (i.e. not the breast) and classify details of high importance so that detail can be retained where it's needed.

Especially handy that it wouldn't require a new file format. It only requires the encoder to support variable compression. (I know Photoshop supported this for JPEG many decades ago.)

Re: macOS 14 will support JPEG XL

#95

Post by viraptor »

cjawdb wrote: post #72
viraptor wrote: post #53

I'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…

I'm confused where you got "it was available for years and ignored in popular software" from? Most of the ISO standard was only published last year, with the last bit being published in October 2022. IIRC AVIF is almost ~4 years old by the same standards and WebP is over a decade old. Adobe has partial support (in Camera RAW) with presumably further support coming considering their website recommends JXL alongside AV…

(Facepalm) I was totally thinking of jpeg2000 not jpeg xl. That makes so much more sense!

Re: macOS 14 will support JPEG XL

#96

Post by simondotau »

cjawdb wrote: post #72
viraptor wrote: post #53

I'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…

I'm confused where you got "it was available for years and ignored in popular software" from? Most of the ISO standard was only published last year, with the last bit being published in October 2022. IIRC AVIF is almost ~4 years old by the same standards and WebP is over a decade old. Adobe has partial support (in Camera RAW) with presumably further support coming considering their website recommends JXL alongside AV…

Aside from JPEG 2000, which did in fact gain traction in a few verticals, the grandparent might have also confused it for JPEG-LS (1999), JPEG XR (2009), JPEG XT (2015), or JPEG XS (2019).

Honestly I think the biggest risk to adoption of JPEG XL might be this prior brand dilution.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lossless_JPEG#JPEG-LS

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JPEG_2000

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JPEG_XR

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JPEG_XT

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JPEG_XS

Re: macOS 14 will support JPEG XL

#98

Post by alwillis »

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 radiology software developer: please please let JPEG XL become a thing.

If things with Apple go well and JPEG XL is supported natively on macOS, iOS and iPadOS this fall, it would be on its way to becoming a thing.

After all, 2 billion devices isn't nothin’.

Re: macOS 14 will support JPEG XL

#99

Post by bick_nyers »

simondotau wrote: post #94
bick_nyers wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Video is not lossless, a second of high quality video might be a total of 5 megabytes. A mammogram on the other hand, might be 300 images of lossless 4k resolution, which could clock in at about 2 gigabytes. That could be per breast in a given study, and a study could have prior mammograms attached as well. You will hit memory limits, so you need to be able to unload and load data intelligently and quickly.

Image compression for mammograms seems like a thing ideally suited to a straightforward ML task — a model trained to classify sections of an image which are outside of the area of relevance (i.e. not the breast) and classify details of high importance so that detail can be retained where it's needed. Especially handy that it wouldn't require a new file format. It only requires the encoder to support variable compress…

I might be missing the details here, but everything outside the breast should be pretty much black and will get compressed very efficiently (high signal, low noise, easy to predict).

Foveated compression sounds like a super cool idea I've never thought about before.

Before that, you would need to get radiologists onboard with the idea of something being "diagnostically lossless" (think visually lossless), which is currently a hard sell (some promising research does exist on this)!

Re: macOS 14 will support JPEG XL

#100

Post by vetinari »

jeffbee wrote: post #23
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.

Can you explain to the rest of us what about JPEG XL applies to that use case? If you asked me to store lossless, 16-bit (per channel, or monochrome, I am assuming) images I would suggest TIFF.

TIFF is a container, it can have payload with different compression schemes, lossy or lossless. Including JXL.
Post reply on HN