131–140 of 164 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
no. 8 bits isn't enough to cover SRGB without banding artifacts (without dithering).
Wait, what? Even with gamma encoding?
Scanning the comments here and I don't see anyone addressing the elephant in the room: PATENTS. After a bit of searching, it's unclear what degree of "patent risk" comes with JPEG XL. JPEG historically was subject to patent troll lawsuits until the patent expired in 2006. Please note that it's not enough for there to be a "royalty-free reference implementation" of JPEG XL, even if it's licensed with Apache 2.0, becau…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
it's still a version of jpeg that supports transparency, and it's actually well supported (down to ios 14) to use without also having to deliver a fallback format now. it's not as good as it's successors, but if you are chosing one format and care about image size, it's the best choice.
I’m not saying it was terrible but that it took a long time for it to be worth the trouble unless you really needed transparency. It’s only been the last year or so that you could expect to be able to use it for anything non-trivial and not spend time dealing with tools which didn’t support it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
On the contrary, the webp push didn't really hurt anything... there were (IIRC) no major exploits related to it, and it sees some use. I wouldn't say it was a mistake. But it was a tremendous amount of effort and promotion on Google's end for a relatively narrow format.
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…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I’m not saying it was terrible but that it took a long time for it to be worth the trouble unless you really needed transparency. It’s only been the last year or so that you could expect to be able to use it for anything non-trivial and not spend time dealing with tools which didn’t support it.
it did, but mostly because safari dragged its feet for years. Thank god they didn't take this long for AVIF (though I would have loved it if they had shipped AVIF in io15, since a bunch of devices won't get ios16)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I dont think anything has changed. JPEG XL being supported by Apple would only be 20% of user world wide. Assuming every one uses it. According to the initial Google thread this is likely not considered as high enough interest. With Google's study [1], by Google's Engineer, JPEG XL is no where near good enough compared to AVIF. None of the above facts have changed since Google Chrome's decision on JPEG XL. /S [1] htt…
That study is far from being conclusive. Please read also https://cloudinary.com/blog/the-case-for-jpeg-xl
Yes that is why I had "/S" at the end.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I’m not saying it was terrible but that it took a long time for it to be worth the trouble unless you really needed transparency. It’s only been the last year or so that you could expect to be able to use it for anything non-trivial and not spend time dealing with tools which didn’t support it.
it did, but mostly because safari dragged its feet for years. Thank god they didn't take this long for AVIF (though I would have loved it if they had shipped AVIF in io15, since a bunch of devices won't get ios16)
AVIF has gone better because it wasn’t based on a video codec which was never really competitive, was developed collaboratively, and didn’t have feature regressions from JPEG. As with tool support, that last matters a lot at many organizations because the edge experience tends to decide things - even if 95% of your usage is boring 8-bit 4:2:0 the institutional memory tends to be shaped by the times you hit something which can’t be used without more work. If it compressed as well as AVIF, more people might have decided WebP was worth it but since it only marginally outperformed JPEG the case was never that strong.
Part of what I meant by “shipping the prototype” was this kind of stuff: someone at Google wanted to find another use for the On2 IP they’d purchased so they tossed it into a 20 year old container format and shipped it. As with WebM, the benchmarks were fast and loose which meant that anyone who replicated them saw substantially lower performance, which is another great way not to build confidence in your format.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yet WebP support is still pretty dreadful.
Dreadful where? In this day and age, WebP is supported by every browser, I can browse them comfortably in my file manager and basically every image-related program can open and edit them (I'm running GNOME on Arch). Where is it lacking? I'm not a fan of WebP, mind, but the idea that support for it is dreadful is strange to me.
Personally, the fact that it was Googles idea means I’m going to hold it at arms length, if not avoid it entirely. The web should be built on open standards.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It's not just gamergate style rage though. Large and small companies have made statements in support of JPEG XL standardization. These facts support my point: the issue filed as linked above correctly cites one of those statements of support, without resorting to outrage, and has been successful at getting Chromium team's attention to the matter. https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=145180... (Note…
What’s outrageous is Google’s BS reasoning for dropping the format. They claim lack of interest when they (and Firefox) have been hiding JPEGXL support behind flags (and nightlies in the case of FireFox) yet WebP and AVIF is fully supported despite their similarly niche status. Chrome’s support for JPEGXL was also already more or less complete when they decided to drop it. Ironically though it has brought a lot of pu…