41–50 of 104 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It has both lossy and lossless modes.
Good to hear. I sure hope they came up with a good, clear system to distinguish them.
I was thinking that too, but on the other hand, even a lossless file can't guarantee that its contents aren't the result of going through a lossy intermediate format, such as a screenshot created from a JPEG.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think so: JPEG 2000, as far as I know, isn't generally supported for web use in web browsers, but it is supported in PDF.
So Firefox (or others) can't open a pdf with a embedded jpeg-2000/XL? Or does pdf.js somehow support it?
This test renders correctly in Firefox, in any case: https://sources.debian.org/data/main/p/pdf2djvu/0.9.18.2-2/t...
It is absolutely insane that google has not implemented this yet. They implement all sort of unimportant stuff but not the most critical image format of this decade, what a joke
And the things they do implement, they kill 8 or so years later. https://killedbygoogle.com/
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…
Huh? Safari seems to render HDR JPEG XLs without any issues these days (e.g. [1]), and supports wide gamut in even more formats as far a I remember.
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…
You act like this is some kind of mistake or limit of technology, but really it's an obvious intentional business decision.
Under late stage capitalism, it'd be weird if this wasn't the case in 2026.
Address the underlying issue, or don't be surprised by the race to the bottom.
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…
It is incredibly annoying that instead of adopting JpegXL they decided to use UltraHDR. A giant hack which works very poorly.
I think Ultra HDR (and Apple's take on it, ISO 21496-1) make a lot of sense in a scenario where shipping alternate formats/codecs is not viable because renderer capabilities are not known or vary, similarly to how HDR was implemented on Blu-Ray 4K discs with the backwards-compatible Dolby Vision profiles.
It's also possible to do what Apple has done for HEIC on iOS: Store the modern format, convert to the best-known supported format at export/sharing time.
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.
> The team explained that other platforms moved ahead. Safari supports JPEG XL, and Windows 11 users can add native support through an image extension from Microsoft Store. The format is also confirmed for use in PDF documents.
glad those folks didn't listen to "the format is dead since the biggest browser doesn't support it" (and shame on Firefox for not doing the same)
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…
> It's absolutely bonkers to me that we've all collectively figured out how to stream a Hollywood movie to a pocket device over radio with a quality exceeding that of a typical cinema theatre, but these multi-trillion market cap corporations have all utterly failed to allow users to reliably send a still image with the same quality to each other! You act like this is some kind of mistake or limit of technology, but r…
On one hand, there have been (and still are!) several competing HDR formats for videos (HDR+, Dolby Vision, "plain" HLG, Dolby Vision in HLG etc.), and it tooks years for a winner to pull ahead – that race just started earlier, and the set of stakeholders is different (and arguably a bit smaller) than that for still images.
On the other hand, there are also several still image HDR formats competing with each other right now (JPEG with depth map metadata, i.e. Ultra HDR and ISO 21496-1, Apple's older custom metadata, HEIF, AVIF, JPEG XL...), and JPEG XL isn't the clear winner yet.
Format wars are messy, and always have been. Yes, to some extent they are downstream of the lack of a central standardization body, but there's no anti-HDR cabal anywhere. If anything, it's the opposite – new AV formats requiring new hardware is just about the best thing that can happen to device manufacturers.
Here are the direct links: blink-dev mailing list https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/g/blink-dev/c/WjCKc... Tracking Bug (reopened) https://issues.chromium.org/issues/40168998
The patch at the end of that thread uses a C++ implementation so it is a dead end.