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

Samsung Joins Apple and Adobe in Supporting JPEG XL

r2.community.samsung.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 51 posts

Re: Samsung Joins Apple and Adobe in Supporting JPEG XL

#21

Post by lifthrasiir »

Varriount wrote: post #14
archerx wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They want their awful webp format to win for some reason.

From a technical perspective, what are the differences between the two?

The original lossy WebP format is more or less an intra-coded frame format from VP8. This "I-frame-as-image" approach was considered good enough for some time, for example AVIF largely follows the same structure.

The WebP lossless format (internally "VP8L") is the second codec supported by libwebp but otherwise independent. This format can be thought as an optimized PNG; it uses the main PNG algorithm but then tweaks various bits for better compression. For this reason it is very rare to see PNG files smaller than losslessly compressed WebP files when efficiently done.

JPEG XL is very different from both. There are some technical resemblances, as the author of lossless WebP also worked on JPEG XL (and Brotli), but the overall architecture is completely revamped. The lossy portion of JPEG XL is a (much larger) superset of JPEG 1, while the lossless portion is based on a learnable context modelling respresented as a binary decision tree. And then everything got sandwiched between yet another set of components.

Re: Samsung Joins Apple and Adobe in Supporting JPEG XL

#22

Post by adgjlsfhk1 »

Varriount wrote: post #14
archerx wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They want their awful webp format to win for some reason.

From a technical perspective, what are the differences between the two?

the main difference is webp is a last gen video format (vp9) adapted to support images, while jpeg-xl is an image format first. This may not sound important, but actually matters a lot because videos and images are viewed very differently and therefore have different constraints to optimize for.

1. A frame of video only is viewed for 1/30th to 1/60th of a second. Quality standards are lower than for an image which will often be looked at for several seconds. One example tradeof is webp always has chroma sub-sampling which is a fairly major quality tradeoff.

2. image sizes vary a lot more. Images sizes range from 32x32 pixels to enormous. Videos are pretty much always between 360p and 4k (webp supports 16k by 16k vs 1 billion by 1 billion for jpeg-xl)

3. videos don't care about progressive loading, but it makes sense for images (especially for users with slow connections)

4. video formats care about encode time because a videos are massive. Image formats are fine with 100x slower encode if it makes the file smaller and decode is faster 3.

Re: Samsung Joins Apple and Adobe in Supporting JPEG XL

#23

Post by scorpio241 »

milleramp wrote: post #17

This is a marketing article for s24, jpeg XL is mentioned once towards the end as a replacement for raw capture. This title is misleading.

Allowing to write as JPEG XL comes with necessity to read it - probably leading to full support.

Also they have a separate JPEG XL article: https://r2.community.samsung.com/t5/CamCyclopedia/JPEG-XL-Im...

Re: Samsung Joins Apple and Adobe in Supporting JPEG XL

#24

Post by archerx »

handsclean wrote: post #18
archerx wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They want their awful webp format to win for some reason.

Honest question: what’s so awful about WEBP? Though it’s worse than the gen arriving now, it’s better than or the same as the one before it for the use cases it supports, and free and open. I get the impression people associate it with brokenness and low quality, but the brokenness is just a lack of support, and the quality a creator choice. Maybe its original sin was not trying to be suitable for original data, lead…

I associate it with google, and I have associated google with bad and untrustworthy. Also google's hostility towards jpeg xl makes me even more apprehensive of their format and the way they tried to push it so hard.

Also jpeg XL is just much better than webp.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qc2DvJpXh-A

Re: Samsung Joins Apple and Adobe in Supporting JPEG XL

#25

Post by jiggawatts »

Just reminding everyone that it is now 2024, and it is still impossible to send a HDR still image to a group of people not all in the same ecosystem.

Apple for example “supports” the JPEG XL format, but decodes it to sRGB SDR irrespective of the source image gamut.

As of today, Adobe Lightroom running on an Apple iDevice can edit a RAW camera image in HDR, can export the result in three formats… none of which can be viewed as HDR on the same device.

Windows 11 with all the latest updates can basically open nothing and will show garbage half the time when it can open new formats.

Linux is still stuck in the teletype era and will catch up to $399 Aldi televisions from China any decade now.

I should create an “Are we HDR yet?” page and track this stuff.

These are trillion dollar companies acting like children fighting over a toy.

“No! Use my format! I don’t want to play with your format! It’s yucky!”

Re: Samsung Joins Apple and Adobe in Supporting JPEG XL

#26

Post by stephenr »

Reason077 wrote: post #12
ipsum2 wrote: post #10

Google, not content with existing image formats that support 10-bit like HEIC (used by Apple) and AVIF (based off of AV1, a codec that Google helped design and is better than JPEG), they decided in all their wisdom to make Ultra HDR for Android phones, which is an incompatible standard built on top of JPEG, which is separate from JPEG-XL. Now Samsung has released Super HDR, without any information about that standard…

Considering JPEG XL and Ultra HDR are both based on JPEG, couldn't they be combined into one standard? Wouldn't it be better for everyone if the whole industry could eventually agree on a single standard? Apple's HEIC is very annoying since it's not really supported by anything non-Apple. Would certainly be nice to see that go away.

> Apple's HEIC is very annoying since it's not really supported by anything non-Apple.

"Apple's"?

HEIC is HEVC encoded image in a HEIF container, it's defined in ISO/IEC 23008-12, and was created by the Motion Picture Experts Group.

Further more, it's supported by Windows 10/11, Android 10 and Ubuntu 20.04.

Or did you mean, it's not really supported by browsers other than Safari?

Whose fault is that?

> Would certainly be nice to see that go away.

Why, exactly?

Did you also wish for H.264 playback support to "go away" when Safari supported it, but neither Chrome nor Firefox did?

Re: Samsung Joins Apple and Adobe in Supporting JPEG XL

#27

Post by reedciccio »

stephenr wrote: post #26
Reason077 wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Considering JPEG XL and Ultra HDR are both based on JPEG, couldn't they be combined into one standard? Wouldn't it be better for everyone if the whole industry could eventually agree on a single standard? Apple's HEIC is very annoying since it's not really supported by anything non-Apple. Would certainly be nice to see that go away.

> Apple's HEIC is very annoying since it's not really supported by anything non-Apple. "Apple's"? HEIC is HEVC encoded image in a HEIF container, it's defined in ISO/IEC 23008-12, and was created by the Motion Picture Experts Group. Further more, it's supported by Windows 10/11, Android 10 and Ubuntu 20.04. Or did you mean, it's not really supported by browsers other than Safari? Whose fault is that? > Would certainl…

> Whose fault is that?

Wild guess: the standard is encumbered by patents. MPEG-LA consortium is notorious for extracting rent from this sort of stuff.

Re: Samsung Joins Apple and Adobe in Supporting JPEG XL

#28

Post by stephenr »

reedciccio wrote: post #27
stephenr wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Apple's HEIC is very annoying since it's not really supported by anything non-Apple. "Apple's"? HEIC is HEVC encoded image in a HEIF container, it's defined in ISO/IEC 23008-12, and was created by the Motion Picture Experts Group. Further more, it's supported by Windows 10/11, Android 10 and Ubuntu 20.04. Or did you mean, it's not really supported by browsers other than Safari? Whose fault is that? > Would certainl…

> Whose fault is that? Wild guess: the standard is encumbered by patents. MPEG-LA consortium is notorious for extracting rent from this sort of stuff.

> On November 22, 2016, HEVC Advance announced a major initiative, revising their policy to allow software implementations of HEVC to be distributed directly to consumer mobile devices and personal computers royalty free, without requiring a patent license.

Regardless of that, macOS, Windows, iOS and Android all have OS-level support, via a combination of hardware and software decoders. Ubuntu (and Debian) provide libraries in their official repos.

So you're saying that neither Chrome nor Firefox support HEIC because of patents, despite arguably 90%+ of the environments they will run, having OS-level support for the format?

Sure that sounds likely. I'm totally sure that's the reason Google doesn't support this. I'm positive it's nothing at all to do with pushing the format they control, and omitting or removing support for formats they don't control. That would be such an obvious dick move, it's inconceivable they would do that.. right.. RIGHT?

Re: Samsung Joins Apple and Adobe in Supporting JPEG XL

#29

Post by 112233 »

lifthrasiir wrote: post #6
Kye wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's what DNG is for.

I mean, JPEG XL is designed as an all-encompassing file format that also subsumes RAW and DNG. On the other hand, DNG 1.7.0.0 added JPEG XL as one of compression options back in 2022 (!), which might be what Samsung is actually using.

Where can I read more about JPEG XL subsumming of raw? As far as I understand, you cannot specify differen colorspace for different subsets of pixels?

Re: Samsung Joins Apple and Adobe in Supporting JPEG XL

#30

Post by lonjil »

stephenr wrote: post #28
reedciccio wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Whose fault is that? Wild guess: the standard is encumbered by patents. MPEG-LA consortium is notorious for extracting rent from this sort of stuff.

> On November 22, 2016, HEVC Advance announced a major initiative, revising their policy to allow software implementations of HEVC to be distributed directly to consumer mobile devices and personal computers royalty free, without requiring a patent license. Regardless of that, macOS, Windows, iOS and Android all have OS-level support, via a combination of hardware and software decoders. Ubuntu (and Debian) provide li…

Mate, Apple has been using HEIC for over 6 years, but they didn't add it to Safari until less than a year ago. And Apple doesn't even want you to use HEIC on the web! They added it to Safari so that app devs can use it in WebViews.
Post reply on HN