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

41–50 of 164 posts

Re: Request: Re-open JPEG XL issue

#41

Post by mschuster91 »

brucethemoose2 wrote: post #20
jsnell wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of course Apple adding support in Safari is far more important than Internet outrage! At this point adding new {image, audio, video, compression} codecs to browsers is probably a net negative, unless there's a good chance they get deployed across the entire browser ecosystem. Safari is generally the browser that's most conservative about implementing anything new, so their support makes a huge difference in the viabi…

None of this stopped Google's push for WebP or AVIF.

Google has enough moat via the Chrome, Chrome-derivative browser and Youtube client marketshare to push through a new format virtually everywhere outside the Apple ecosystem.

Re: Request: Re-open JPEG XL issue

#42

Post by dragonwriter »

izacus wrote: post #39

At this point this just seems like one of those internet religious wars instead of anything actually tecnically usable. 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.

> I bet after (re)introduction, most of people yelling for it won't actually convert their JPEGs to XL.

The idea is converting workflows to JPEG XL (and particularly to enable uses for which JPEG isn’t suitable and even AVIF is supposedly less optimal), not converting existing JPEGs, mainly.

Re: Request: Re-open JPEG XL issue

#43

Post by pavel_lishin »

boesboes wrote: post #19

It seems even the triage is done by bots, or they just don't read the issue, or it's just a tactic to prevent anything from being done, but seriously: > @Reporter Could you please confirm the OS details.

My favorite bit:

> As the issue seems similar to crbug.com/1178058 adding firsching to cc list for more inputs.

Re: Request: Re-open JPEG XL issue

#44

Post by robinsonb5 »

doodlesdev wrote: post #22
gsich wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

The archetypal libjpeg has supported 12-bit for a long time, but it's a been a compile-time option, so an application (or distro package) had to choose which bit-depth to support.

Re: Request: Re-open JPEG XL issue

#45

Post by rocqua »

teraflop wrote: post #33
tssva wrote: post #4

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.

Although I can sympathize, I don't really understand the point of opening a new issue when all the same information has already been left in comments on the old closed issue. 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 becau…

Further discussion on that closed issue is no longer possible right? So any new information that might cause a re-evaluation needs to be presented in a new issue.

The new information here seems to be 'most people thought the previous decision was bad', rather than 'please I really want this'. Changing an old decision because most people think it was bad is not a sign of utter dysfunction.

Re: Request: Re-open JPEG XL issue

#46

Post by doublepg23 »

mschuster91 wrote: post #41
brucethemoose2 wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

None of this stopped Google's push for WebP or AVIF.

Google has enough moat via the Chrome, Chrome-derivative browser and Youtube client marketshare to push through a new format virtually everywhere outside the Apple ecosystem.

Yet WebP support is still pretty dreadful.

Re: Request: Re-open JPEG XL issue

#47

Post by [deleted] »

PaulHoule wrote: post #30
stavros wrote: post #23

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…

[deleted]

Re: Request: Re-open JPEG XL issue

#48

Post by PaulHoule »

CharlesW wrote: post #37
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…

> 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…

It's a Jedi mind trick.

The compression artifacts in the self-shadows of the red bit of the car to the left of the driver's head look awful to me. It's true that the compression artifact blends in pretty well and you might think the car really looks like that but personally I can't unsee things like that once I look at them in comparison.

The thing is that it is that play of reflections and shadows that makes an expensive sports car look so sexy.

Re: Request: Re-open JPEG XL issue

#49

Post by DannyBee »

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.

Uh? This is just a random request on a bug tracker that someone is triaging the same way they triage all other things?

Re: Request: Re-open JPEG XL issue

#50

Post by rokweom »

meindnoch wrote: post #29
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?

With proper dithering, I would guess even rec. 2020 would be doable.
Post reply on HN