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

21–30 of 164 posts

Re: Request: Re-open JPEG XL issue

#21

Post by gsich »

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…

JPEG has 12-bit somewhere in the standard, not sure on where it's implemented.

Re: Request: Re-open JPEG XL issue

#22

Post by doodlesdev »

gsich wrote: post #21
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…

JPEG has 12-bit somewhere in the standard, not sure on where it's implemented.

I'm not aware of any photo editing software that can export 12bit JPEG (although to be fair I don't know many), I am aware though that JPEG 2000 supports 12bit color and that JPEG XT supports up to 16bit color, perhaps that's whats causing the confusion?

Re: Request: Re-open JPEG XL issue

#23

Post by stavros »

pornel wrote: post #13
FoxBJK wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think Google's answer to that is WebP.

If anything, it'd be AVIF. WebP is obsolete. It's still based on VP8 codec, which in video has been replaced by VP9 long time ago.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.

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

Re: Request: Re-open JPEG XL issue

#24

Post by wpietri »

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.

Yeah, Google's top three revenue sources are ads, ads, and ads. (Respectively search, network, and YouTube.) Their customers are advertisers. Chrome's job (and Android's) is to make sure they retain control of sufficient surface area to place ads. Chrome user opinion to them is important to their business in about the same way meatpackers care about what cattle think of the design of the feeding stations. As long as they keep coming to eat, it's just mooing.

Re: Request: Re-open JPEG XL issue

#26

Post by wpietri »

snickerbockers wrote: post #16

I'm just reading through the wikipedia page on this for the first time. 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 "check…

This is a good look at the benefits of JPEG XL: https://cloudinary.com/blog/jpeg-xl-how-it-started-how-its-g...

It was discussed here a few weeks ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36801448

Re: Request: Re-open JPEG XL issue

#27

Post by gulikoza »

purpleblue wrote: post #14

Can someone summarize the issue with JPEG XL? Is this something that really matters? I've seen this mentioned a couple of times in the last few days but I don't see what the big deal is, is it really that necessary?

JPEG is 30 years old so we need something more modern (better compression, less visual artifacts, web optimized, etc...). There already was a plan to change it with JPEG 2000, but it failed, obviously, as we still use jpegs.

Now several formats are competing, most notably AVIF (which is basically just single AV1 video compressed frame) and JPEG XL. JPEG XL might be slightly better in some cases (as AVIF is based on a video codec) and most importantly it's backwards compatible with JPEG. So this means we can re-encode 30 years of JPEGs to JPEG XL without image degradation. Having a wide support would help immensely to make the format standard as otherwise everybody will just continue to use JPEGs. Google is somewhat against this as they already have support for AV1 and thus don't need to maintain a separate codec for JPEG XL.

Re: Request: Re-open JPEG XL issue

#28

Post by buttersbrian »

stavros wrote: post #23
pornel wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If anything, it'd be AVIF. 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.

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

"switched to"? There's no full switch to anything.

Webp has been around for over a decade. AVIF will probably get adoption as a faster rate in my estimation.

Re: Request: Re-open JPEG XL issue

#29

Post by meindnoch »

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?

Re: Request: Re-open JPEG XL issue

#30

Post by PaulHoule »

stavros wrote: post #23
pornel wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If anything, it'd be AVIF. 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.

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 to balance quality and size you find you have to manually set the compression level on each image. 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.

In 2023 I think you can just use WebP and it will work well, my experience looking at images is that AVIF does better for moderate to low quality images but for high quality images it doesn’t really beat WebP.

Post reply on HN