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

Google Revisits JPEG XL in Chromium After Earlier Removal

windowsreport.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 104 posts

Re: Google Revisits JPEG XL in Chromium After Earlier Removal

#21

Post by jmgao »

AshleysBrain wrote: post #12

I think the article is slightly misleading: it says "Google has resumed work on JPEG XL", but I don't think they have - their announcement only says they "would welcome contributions" to implement JPEG XL support. In other words, Google won't do it themselves, but their new position is they're now willing to allow someone else to do the work.

Describing it as 'Google' is misleading, because different arms of the company might as well be completely different companies. The Chrome org seems to have had the same stance as Firefox with regards to JPEG XL: "we don't want to add 100,000 lines of multithreaded C++ because it's a giant gaping security risk", and the JPEG XL team (in a completely separate org) is addressing those concerns by implementing a Rust version. I'd guess that needing the "commitment to long-term maintenance" is Chrome fighting with Google Research or whatever about long-term headcount allocation towards support: Chrome doesn't want the JPEG XL team to launch and abandon JPEG XL in chrome and leaving Chrome engineers to deal with the fallout.

Re: Google Revisits JPEG XL in Chromium After Earlier Removal

#23

Post by fingerlocks »

jiggawatts wrote: post #11

2026 is nearly upon us, and Google, Microsoft, and Apple remain steadfast in the refusal to ever allow anyone to share wide-gamut or HDR images. Every year, I go on a rant about how my camera can take HDR images natively, but the only way to share these with a wider audience is to convert them to a slideshow and make a Rec.2020 HDR movie that I upload to YouTube. It's absolutely bonkers to me that we've all collectiv…

What are you talking about? You extract 3 exposure values from the raw camera buffer and merge and tone map them manually into a single HDR image. The final exported image format may not have the full supported color space, but that’s on you. Apple uses the P3 space by default.

This has been supported by both Apple and third party apps for over a decade. I’ve implemented it myself.

Re: Google Revisits JPEG XL in Chromium After Earlier Removal

#24

Post by [deleted] »

jonsneyers wrote: post #16
AshleysBrain wrote: post #12

I think the article is slightly misleading: it says "Google has resumed work on JPEG XL", but I don't think they have - their announcement only says they "would welcome contributions" to implement JPEG XL support. In other words, Google won't do it themselves, but their new position is they're now willing to allow someone else to do the work.

It's technically correct. Googlers (at Google Research Zurich) have been working on jxl-rs, a Rust implementation of JPEG XL. Google Research has been involved in JPEG XL from the beginning, both in the design of the codec and in the implementation of libjxl and now jxl-rs. But until now, the position of other Googlers (in the Chrome team) was that they didn't want to have JPEG XL support in Chrome. And that changed…

[deleted]

Re: Google Revisits JPEG XL in Chromium After Earlier Removal

#25

Post by jiggawatts »

n8cpdx wrote: post #19
jiggawatts wrote: post #11

2026 is nearly upon us, and Google, Microsoft, and Apple remain steadfast in the refusal to ever allow anyone to share wide-gamut or HDR images. Every year, I go on a rant about how my camera can take HDR images natively, but the only way to share these with a wider audience is to convert them to a slideshow and make a Rec.2020 HDR movie that I upload to YouTube. It's absolutely bonkers to me that we've all collectiv…

I’m wondering if HDR means something different to me, because I see HDR images all the time. I can share HDR images via phones (this seems to be the default behavior on iPhone/Mac messages), I can see HDR PNG stills on the web ( https://github.com/swankjesse/hdr-emojis ), I can see wide gamut P3 images on the web as well ( https://webkit.org/blog-files/color-gamut/ ). What am I missing?

> I can share HDR images via phones

Sure, me too! I can take a HDR P3 gamut picture with my iPhone and share it with all my friends and relatives... that have iPhones.

What I cannot do is take a picture with a $4000 Nikon DSLR and share it in the same way... unless I also buy a Mac so I can encode it in the magic Apple-only format[1] that works... for Mac and IOS users. I have a Windows PC. Linux users are similarly out in the cold.

This situation so incredibly bad that I can pop the SD card of my camera into an reader plugged into my iPhone, process the RAW image on the iPhone with the Lightroom iPhone app in full, glorious HDR... and then be unable to export the HDR image onto the same device for viewing because oh-my-fucking-god-why!?

[1] They claim it is a standards-compliant HEIF file. No, it isn't. That's a filthy lie. My camera produces a HDR HEIF file natively, in-body. Everything opens it just fine, except all Apple ecosystem devices. I suspect the only way to get Apple to budge is to sue them for false advertising. But... sigh... they'll just change their marketing to remove "HEIF" and move on.

Re: Google Revisits JPEG XL in Chromium After Earlier Removal

#26

Post by jiggawatts »

fingerlocks wrote: post #23
jiggawatts wrote: post #11

2026 is nearly upon us, and Google, Microsoft, and Apple remain steadfast in the refusal to ever allow anyone to share wide-gamut or HDR images. Every year, I go on a rant about how my camera can take HDR images natively, but the only way to share these with a wider audience is to convert them to a slideshow and make a Rec.2020 HDR movie that I upload to YouTube. It's absolutely bonkers to me that we've all collectiv…

What are you talking about? You extract 3 exposure values from the raw camera buffer and merge and tone map them manually into a single HDR image. The final exported image format may not have the full supported color space, but that’s on you. Apple uses the P3 space by default. This has been supported by both Apple and third party apps for over a decade. I’ve implemented it myself.

That's not HDR. That's pretend HDR in an SDR file, an artistic effect, nothing more.

Actual HDR needs at least 10 bits per channel and a modern display with peak brightness far in excess of traditional monitors. Ideally over 1,000 nits compared to typical LCD brightness of about 200.

You also don't need "three pictures". That was a hack used for the oldest digital cameras that had about 8 bits of precision in their analog to digital converters (ADC). Even my previous camera had a 14-bit ADC and in practice could capture about 12.5 bits of dynamic range, which is plenty for HDR imaging.

Lightroom can now edit and export images in "true" HDR, basically the same as a modern HDR10 or Dolby Vision movie.

The problem is that the only way to share the exported HDR images is to convert them to a movie file format, and share them as a slide show.

There is no widely compatible still image format that can preserve 10-bit-per-channel colours, wide-gamut, and HDR metadata.

Re: Google Revisits JPEG XL in Chromium After Earlier Removal

#27

Post by gen2brain »

jiggawatts wrote: post #25
n8cpdx wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m wondering if HDR means something different to me, because I see HDR images all the time. I can share HDR images via phones (this seems to be the default behavior on iPhone/Mac messages), I can see HDR PNG stills on the web ( https://github.com/swankjesse/hdr-emojis ), I can see wide gamut P3 images on the web as well ( https://webkit.org/blog-files/color-gamut/ ). What am I missing?

> I can share HDR images via phones Sure, me too! I can take a HDR P3 gamut picture with my iPhone and share it with all my friends and relatives... that have iPhones. What I cannot do is take a picture with a $4000 Nikon DSLR and share it in the same way... unless I also buy a Mac so I can encode it in the magic Apple-only format[1] that works... for Mac and IOS users. I have a Windows PC. Linux users are similarly…

Not that I disagree, but HEIF is a container format. What is inside that container is essential. HEIC in HEIF, AVIF in HEIF, etc.

Re: Google Revisits JPEG XL in Chromium After Earlier Removal

#28

Post by baq »

jiggawatts wrote: post #11

2026 is nearly upon us, and Google, Microsoft, and Apple remain steadfast in the refusal to ever allow anyone to share wide-gamut or HDR images. Every year, I go on a rant about how my camera can take HDR images natively, but the only way to share these with a wider audience is to convert them to a slideshow and make a Rec.2020 HDR movie that I upload to YouTube. It's absolutely bonkers to me that we've all collectiv…

I wish I could upvote this multiple times. Spot on, the situation is completely batshit bonkers insane.

Re: Google Revisits JPEG XL in Chromium After Earlier Removal

#30

Post by ksec »

While being a big supporter of JPEG-XL on HN, I just want to note AV2 is coming out soon, which should further improve the image compression. ( Edit: Also worth pointing out current JPEG-XL encoder is no where near its maximum potential in terms of quality / compression ratio )

But JPEG-XL is being quite widely used now, from PDF, medical images, camera lossless, as well as being evaluated in different stage of cinema / artist workflow production. Hopefully the rust decoder will be ready soon.

And from the wording, it seems to imply Google Chrome will officially support anything from AOM.

Post reply on HN