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

Request: Re-open JPEG XL issue

bugs.chromium.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 164 posts

Re: Request: Re-open JPEG XL issue

#51

Post by altairprime »

jsnell wrote: post #12
brucethemoose2 wrote: post #2

So, all it takes to consider a small community requested change in Chromium is a massive protest from thousands of users, small businesses, and Fortune 500 companies for almost a year... Or maybe they are just trying to keep feature parity with Safari.

Of course Apple adding support in Safari is far more important than Internet outrage! At this point adding new {image, audio, video, compression} codecs to browsers is probably a net negative, unless there's a good chance they get deployed across the entire browser ecosystem. Safari is generally the browser that's most conservative about implementing anything new, so their support makes a huge difference in the viabi…

[flagged]

Re: Request: Re-open JPEG XL issue

#52

Post by adgjlsfhk1 »

meindnoch wrote: post #29
PaulHoule wrote: post #9

As a photographer I am looking forward to it. I process photos in ProPhoto RGB and I’m in the process of switching up my process to always publish images to the web as Display P3 which can be done just fine in JPEG and WEBP by attaching a color profile. Display P3 is moderately larger than the old standard sRGB; you are trading some color resolution in the “mainstream” area for more saturated greens and reds. 4K TV’s…

Is 8bit enough to cover Display P3 without banding artifacts?

no. 8 bits isn't enough to cover SRGB without banding artifacts (without dithering).

Re: Request: Re-open JPEG XL issue

#53

Post by danShumway »

I still need to sit down and convert my personal Linux computer over to using JPEG XL for picture archival and figure out what tools need to change or be updated.

Using it on the web is one thing, but getting better compression for my family photos would also probably be a win, and I suspect it would be possible to build a pipeline for viewing/editing that would be fairly transparent.

Re: Request: Re-open JPEG XL issue

#54

Post by majormajor »

CharlesW wrote: post #37
PaulHoule wrote: post #9

As a photographer I am looking forward to it. I process photos in ProPhoto RGB and I’m in the process of switching up my process to always publish images to the web as Display P3 which can be done just fine in JPEG and WEBP by attaching a color profile. Display P3 is moderately larger than the old standard sRGB; you are trading some color resolution in the “mainstream” area for more saturated greens and reds. 4K TV’s…

> And my experience is that AVIF falls down at that, it does not really save bits compared to JPEG and WEBP at high quality. In all the comparisons I've seen, it's not even a contest. "I picked this image because it's a photo with a mixture of low frequency detail (the road) and high frequency detail (parts of the car livery). Also, there are some pretty sharp changes of colour between the red and blue. And I like F1…

That seems like a bad image for the stuff the OP is talking about - large print high detail stuff - since it's so small, but the AVIF "acceptable" still, even at low res, seems to be clearly throwing away detail compared to the JPEG "acceptable". Look at how the JPEG preserves some of the body seam in the second "l" in RedBull, for instance. So ok, it's a quarter the size, but they aren't showing me how big an AVIF with the same detail as the JPEG would be.

They're just showing that it can do a less-offensive job of erasing detail smoothly to take filesizes down to tiny levels than WebP or JPEG? But "tiniest size with least offense" is VERY different than "best size with greatest detail."

Re: Request: Re-open JPEG XL issue

#55

Post by karim79 »

PaulHoule wrote: post #30
stavros wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We haven't even switched to WebP yet, and it's already obsolete? What hope is there for anything?

I switched to WebP about a year and a half ago. I’d been watching for a long time and it had finally reached the point where support was universal enough that I could not publish a JPEG. WebP has the big advantage that the quality setting is meaningful, you can set it at a certain level and then encode thousands of images and know the quality is about the same. This is by no means true about JPEG, if you are trying t…

> Years back I was concerned about the size of a large JPEG collection and recompressed them which was a big mistake because many of the images were compressed too hard.

Distortion metrics[0] such as MS-SSIM, MS-SSIM*, SIMM, MSE, and PSNR can be used to define a cut-off or threshold for deciding the point at which the image is "compressed enough" by using one or more of those algorithms and predefining the amount of acceptable/tolerable distortion or quality loss. Each of those algorithms has some trade-offs in terms of accuracy and processing time, but it can definitely work for a large set if you find the right settings for your use-case. It is certainly more productive than manually settings the Q-level per image.

Some SaaS such as https://kraken.io do this on JPG images.

[0] https://sourceforge.net/projects/iqa/

Re: Request: Re-open JPEG XL issue

#56

Post by gorlilla »

coldpie wrote: post #40
brucethemoose2 wrote: post #2

So, all it takes to consider a small community requested change in Chromium is a massive protest from thousands of users, small businesses, and Fortune 500 companies for almost a year... Or maybe they are just trying to keep feature parity with Safari.

Adding new image format support to a web browser is not a small change.

And surely doesnt come with any security baggage.

Re: Request: Re-open JPEG XL issue

#57

Post by jsnell »

brucethemoose2 wrote: post #20
jsnell wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of course Apple adding support in Safari is far more important than Internet outrage! At this point adding new {image, audio, video, compression} codecs to browsers is probably a net negative, unless there's a good chance they get deployed across the entire browser ecosystem. Safari is generally the browser that's most conservative about implementing anything new, so their support makes a huge difference in the viabi…

None of this stopped Google's push for WebP or AVIF.

Right, WebP was almost certainly a mistake in hindsight. Whatever advantages it had weren't worth a decade of ecosystem fragmentation. Isn't learning from mistakes and not repeating them a good thing?

I don't think AVIF is a good example of this though. All major browser makers were members of the consortium that created AVIF.

Re: Request: Re-open JPEG XL issue

#58

Post by michaelt »

Personally, I've got no great love for these new image formats.

It's always a pain in the ass when you discover your phone has actually been saving your photos as heic or webp or avif or whatever and hardly anything will open them.

I could understand wanting to improve JPEG in the age of dial-up and 1.44MB floppy disks - 60% smaller images could have been a great benefit in those days. But today, even if I'm taking 30 photos every day at 4k resolution, it'd take 20 years to fill up a $50 1TB disk.

The other benefits of the format might be great for some specialist applications, but options like billion-pixel-wide images, 32 bits per channel and 4099 channels ready for medical imaging only get a shrug from me. I doubt my browser is going to start displaying 4099 channel images.

I just wish we could get rid of heic, webp and avif at the same time.

Re: Request: Re-open JPEG XL issue

#59

Post by alex_suzuki »

boesboes wrote: post #19

It seems even the triage is done by bots, or they just don't read the issue, or it's just a tactic to prevent anything from being done, but seriously: > @Reporter Could you please confirm the OS details.

Yeah, same thought. This actually does not feel like a bot (see random punctuation), just a typical bad 3rd-level support employee.

Re: Request: Re-open JPEG XL issue

#60

Post by Exuma »

michaelt wrote: post #58

Personally, I've got no great love for these new image formats. It's always a pain in the ass when you discover your phone has actually been saving your photos as heic or webp or avif or whatever and hardly anything will open them. I could understand wanting to improve JPEG in the age of dial-up and 1.44MB floppy disks - 60% smaller images could have been a great benefit in those days. But today, even if I'm taking 3…

You very clearly don't care about 90% of the rest of the world who doesn't have fast internet

you also very clearly don't care about the entire internet experience, at all, whatsoever.

Edit: 60% space savings only available in the age of the floppy.... what? 60% cost savings when serving multiple terabytes of image data is useless?

You seem to view everything through the extremely tiny lens of a photographer or something... pun intended

Post reply on HN