11–20 of 164 posts
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.
Can't lose the edge to Tim Apple...
There's a browser joke here somewhere, I'm sure.
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.
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 viability of getting the format universally supported.
JPEG XL looks like a great format, I hope it takes over. I get that most bandwidth goes to video, but it would still be nice to have a great modern standard for images.
I think Google's answer to that is WebP.
WebP is obsolete. It's still based on VP8 codec, which in video has been replaced by VP9 long time ago. AVIF is based on AV1, which is a successor to VP10. So WebP is a few generations behind in the VPx lineage, and is no match for modern codecs.
Does JPEG XL allow encoders to switch between the DCT and modular modes on a per-macroblock basis, or is it just on a per-channel basis?
If it's the former then I can see this offering a lot of utility over other image formats because you'd be able to disable the DCT on high-contrast macroblocks and finally be done with all those god-awful "checkerboard" artifacts around the edges of objects.
But if it's merely on a per-channel basis then I'm not sure I see what the point of this is since I can already use a different format when I need lossless encoding; If anything JXL would become an annoyance because I can't tell if a JXL image is lossless or not based on the file's extension.
For those who are unaware, this looks like a good article for the backstory. https://www.techspot.com/news/98355-google-deprecating-jpeg-...
The fact that we have to get on our knees and plead for their consideration versus just fork and ship should make you ill. No compression without representation or some such.
> @Reporter Could you please confirm the OS details.
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…