31–40 of 164 posts
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?
For those who are unaware, this looks like a good article for the backstory. https://www.techspot.com/news/98355-google-deprecating-jpeg-...
This isn't a good article because of how biased it is against Google. It ignores that there is added cost to Google and their partners in supporting it and ignores the recommendation to use a WASM decoder.
Lack of popularity hasn’t stop them from supporting webp and AVIF.
This isn't the issue regarding JPEG XL support. That issue is still closed as "won't fix". This is a new issue asking for that issue to be re-opened.
If the new issue gets closed, then it just reaffirms that the Chromium team doesn't care about this feature request. If the new issue somehow convinces the team to do something about it, then it shows that the team is utterly dysfunctional because their decision-making is more influenced by whether you say "pretty pretty please" in the right way than by the content of the discussion.
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…
I love this phrase thank you.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 t…
https://archive.smashing.media/assets/344dbf88-fdf9-42bb-adb...
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…
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.
Roughly speaking, at an acceptable quality, the WebP is almost half the size of JPEG, and AVIF is under half the size of WebP. I find it incredible that AVIF can do a good job of the image in just 18 kB."
https://jakearchibald.com/2020/avif-has-landed/
It'd be interesting to see file size comparisons of AVIF lossless images vs. JPEG's "almost lossless" 100% compression, but I haven't run across any yet.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This isn't a good article because of how biased it is against Google. It ignores that there is added cost to Google and their partners in supporting it and ignores the recommendation to use a WASM decoder.
Oh please, Google’s parent company is worth 1.64 trillion USD. They can afford a few programmers to maintain a codec. Lack of popularity hasn’t stop them from supporting webp and AVIF.
This is a bad argument because with that money they can also afford to do almost anything. They could also add any random file format to the browser, but that increases costs to support the web for more than just Google. Meanwhile adding a polyfill to support the format is performant without adding complexity to the web.
I bet after (re)introduction, most of people yelling for it won't actually convert their JPEGs to XL. Just like almost noone whining about Reader actually uses or pays for any of the alternatives.
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.
