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

iPhone 16 could let you shoot in JPEG-XL

idownloadblog.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 65 posts

Re: iPhone 16 could let you shoot in JPEG-XL

#31

Post by londons_explore »

nyanpasu64 wrote: post #20

I want a return to an enforced norm of different extensions for lossy and lossless files. With the adoption of WebP, I've repeatedly encountered shady CDNs substituting in lossy .webp files in place of lossless .png files, in a way you can't tell by the filetype alone when saving a file (whereas you could tell when saving a .png URL but get a .jpg file instead). I fear the same will happen with .jxl files.

In the world of the web, it is the mime type, not the extension, which tells you the format.

It's kinda just lousy OS's which aren't correctly storing the mime type for each file.

Re: iPhone 16 could let you shoot in JPEG-XL

#32

Post by vinkelhake »

nyanpasu64 wrote: post #20

I want a return to an enforced norm of different extensions for lossy and lossless files. With the adoption of WebP, I've repeatedly encountered shady CDNs substituting in lossy .webp files in place of lossless .png files, in a way you can't tell by the filetype alone when saving a file (whereas you could tell when saving a .png URL but get a .jpg file instead). I fear the same will happen with .jxl files.

It wouldn't be effective in practice. There are tools like pngquant that does lossy compression of png. That shady CDN could just as easily recompress png files.

https://pngquant.org/

Re: iPhone 16 could let you shoot in JPEG-XL

#33

Post by M-Valentino »

t-writescode wrote: post #12
M-Valentino wrote: post #6

I want a phone that lets you shoot PNG

PNG is designed for images that don't change colors between each pixel very often. That's how its compression algorithm works. Images, by their nature, are far more fluid, which is why a FFT-based compression algorithm, like the one in jpegs, makes sense for photos.

My idea for wanting PNG encoding is that they have lossless compression, and that the other common format that preserves details is bitmap, which has no lossless compression. At least PNG might compress photos somewhat. The web is plagued with images that have been resaved over and over that have JPEG degradation. I did not know JPG-XL had a lossless format so that's promising imo. But JPG-XL isn't supported in many browsers.

Re: iPhone 16 could let you shoot in JPEG-XL

#34

Post by dchest »

M-Valentino wrote: post #24
The_Colonel wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why? PNG is really a bad format for photos (simply was not designed for this use case) JPEG-XL has a lossless mode if that's what you're after ...

I like PNG's lossless compression. I feel like PNG was a really bad format back when hard drives were 100GB, but now storage is so cheap. I didn't know JPEP-XL had a lossless mode. Other than that format, I don't know of any other formats that offer lossless compression other than bitmap and TIF. You can't really use TIFs in many contexts and bitmaps have no compression at all.

WebP also has a lossless variant, and it compresses much better than PNG.

Re: iPhone 16 could let you shoot in JPEG-XL

#36

Post by foepys »

slimsag wrote: post #26
guidedlight wrote: post #10

The JPEG-XL test page (linked in the article), works well. https://jpegxl.info/test-page/ At the bottom of the page it has animation demonstration, that doesn’t appear to work on my iPhone 13 Pro. Does JPEG-XL really include animation support?

All blank in Firefox :(

That's because Mozilla has no interest supporting it.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34588883

Re: iPhone 16 could let you shoot in JPEG-XL

#37

Post by catoc »

nyanpasu64 wrote: post #20

I want a return to an enforced norm of different extensions for lossy and lossless files. With the adoption of WebP, I've repeatedly encountered shady CDNs substituting in lossy .webp files in place of lossless .png files, in a way you can't tell by the filetype alone when saving a file (whereas you could tell when saving a .png URL but get a .jpg file instead). I fear the same will happen with .jxl files.

tinypng.com compresses ‘lossless’ .pngs

Re: iPhone 16 could let you shoot in JPEG-XL

#38

Post by legohead »

_answ wrote: post #29
nyanpasu64 wrote: post #20

I want a return to an enforced norm of different extensions for lossy and lossless files. With the adoption of WebP, I've repeatedly encountered shady CDNs substituting in lossy .webp files in place of lossless .png files, in a way you can't tell by the filetype alone when saving a file (whereas you could tell when saving a .png URL but get a .jpg file instead). I fear the same will happen with .jxl files.

The lossy vs lossless distinction loses its meaning in the absence of provenance. You can compress a bitmap into a .jpg q=1, and then save it as a .png. The .png is technically lossless, but that clearly doesn't tell much about the image quality. Conversely, many cameras shoot JPEG as the source format. The .jpg is, in effect, the master copy from which the loss is measured (obviously there are losses from the sensor…

I thought most cameras shot RAW and then chose a format to save to (some letting you save RAW itself, at least with Android).

Re: iPhone 16 could let you shoot in JPEG-XL

#39

Post by chungy »

guidedlight wrote: post #10

The JPEG-XL test page (linked in the article), works well. https://jpegxl.info/test-page/ At the bottom of the page it has animation demonstration, that doesn’t appear to work on my iPhone 13 Pro. Does JPEG-XL really include animation support?

> Does JPEG-XL really include animation support?

Yes, it does. It's a limited sort of animation like GIFs were; JPEG XL is not derived from video codecs like WebP, AVIF, and HEIF are, where those formats include "animation" by really breaking out of being a subset and just being the regular intraframe video codec.

Re: iPhone 16 could let you shoot in JPEG-XL

#40

Post by eviks »

duskwuff wrote: post #14
ianburrell wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In addition to the compression, JPEG-XL has some nice features that make it better image format. It also does lossless compression. It does color spaces. One cool feature is that can losslessly convert JPEG into JPEG-XL. And back to JPEG. I can't tell if this applies to all or only converted ones, but it might make good source format and convert to JPEG on export.

> I can't tell if this applies to all or only converted ones JPEG-XL to JPEG is only lossless for JPEG-XL images which were upgraded from JPEG. Not all JPEG-XL images can even be represented as JPEG; in particular, images with more than three channels (like images with transparency, or images with CMYK color) or with multiple frames (like an animation) certainly can't.

What about those that can be represented? Is it possible to convert lpsslessly by losing some compression efficiency or still only upgraded can be downgraded?
Post reply on HN