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

41–50 of 65 posts

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

#41

Post by nanidin »

bobbylarrybobby wrote: post #25
M-Valentino wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I can't imagine a PNG actually having a good compression ratio for photographic data. Better at that point to just shoot RAW.

Why not?

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

#42

Post by cma »

_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…

And a CDN could want to do it, because you can degrade a png in lossy ways from the original that make it compress much better, even though the compression is lossless.

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

#43

Post by eviks »

ksec wrote: post #19
AdamJacobMuller wrote: post #2

is JPEG-XL really an upgrade over HEIC?

For images at low bit per pixel, HEIC is actually quite a bit better than JPEG-XL current encoder. I wouldn't say really an upgrade technically speaking, I would put them on same level with XL have some additional interesting feature. But considering getting HEIC included in other system seems to be difficult due to patents or other reasons. JPEG-XL seems to be the best middle ground in everything. I am still hoping…

From various reviews I've seen, HEIC is not better, it looks "nicer" by losing fidelity for some type of picture

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

#44

Post by eviks »

MBCook wrote: post #3
AdamJacobMuller wrote: post #2

is JPEG-XL really an upgrade over HEIC?

Section in the article: “The iPhone 16 family could let you shoot in JPEG-XL” I’m with you. No normal person is waiting for this. Are any techies? Like maybe 2? The article says the JPEG would be a third the size they are now. OK. That’s nice. But only 12.5% of Internet users can seem ‘em. All of ‘em Apple users. https://caniuse.com/?search=jpeg-xl So what’s the point? Just use HEIC. It’s supported by the exact same…

You forgot that that 12.5% could change "overnight" if Google change their hostile stance, and adding it as a default in a very popular phone increases the chances of that happening, so add a few zeroes to that 2

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

#45

Post by eviks »

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.

Storage isn't cheap, check the iPhone storage upgrade prices

And apps have grown in size, and video/photo size has grown

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

#46

Post by Pikamander2 »

foepys wrote: post #36
slimsag wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All blank in Firefox :(

That's because Mozilla has no interest supporting it. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34588883

Consider upvoting the feature request here if you're interested in it: https://connect.mozilla.org/t5/ideas/idb-p/ideas/status-key/...

The Firefox and Chrome teams will likely get around to adding it eventually, but it's a real shame that they've both chosen to defer it. Normally Safari is the one lagging behind on web standards but somehow it's ended up being the one to lead the charge here.

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

#47

Post by tourmalinetaco »

nanidin wrote: post #41
bobbylarrybobby wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can't imagine a PNG actually having a good compression ratio for photographic data. Better at that point to just shoot RAW.

Why not?

Because of how PNG compresses images. The high detail will lead to large images, and at that point it’d be easier to save the RAW output of the camera, offload the images, and do any compression later.

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

#48

Post by Pikamander2 »

AdamJacobMuller wrote: post #2

is JPEG-XL really an upgrade over HEIC?

Compared to the stark differences between BMP/JPG/PNG/GIF, there's a ton of overlap between WEBP/HEIC/AVIF/JPEGXL.

Naturally, some types of images tend to compress better with some formats than others, and then you may have to take into account things like the desired quality level, encoding time, etc.

https://cloudinary.com/blog/time_for_next_gen_codecs_to_deth...

Realistically, any of those four new formats would be fine for 99% of the images that exist, but it would still be nice for every browser to support them all so that web developers can choose their favorite format.

Although, on the flip side, the drawback of having so many formats floating around is that software developers have to spend more time supporting it all. Even trillion dollar companies like Microsoft are seemingly in no rush to make sure that formats like WebP are as well integrated into their software as JPG/PNG were.

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

#49

Post by pornel »

eviks wrote: post #40
duskwuff wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

JPEG XL has many compression modes inside, and the lossless JPEG roundtrip works only for one of them that was specifically designed to hold old JPEG's data. You can't take an arbitrary JXL file and turn it into a JPEG without lossy recompression.

The old-JPEG-preserving compression mode also isn't the best that JXL can do. It's better than the old JPEG, but not as good as JXL using all the new bells and whistles.

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

#50

Post by pornel »

butz wrote: post #35

Good luck viewing those on Chrome.

24 megapixel almost-lossless photos dumped straight from the camera are too heavy to be used directly on the Web. They also have lots of metadata including GPS location, that people usually don't want to share.

In practice you'd want to resize it (HD is 2mpx, and 4K resolution is 8mpx), and recompress to quality suitable for viewing not editing (makes huge difference in file size).

The necessary recompression step makes the input format mostly irrelevant. The upside is that JPEG XL is free to use, so it's possible to legally write tooling using it without touching the mess of H.265 patents.

Post reply on HN