Request: Re-open JPEG XL issue • Hacker News Board

Re: Request: Re-open JPEG XL issue

#61

Post by sznio » Mon, Aug 07, 2023, 4:27 PM UTC

michaelt wrote: post #58

Personally, I've got no great love for these new image formats. It's always a pain in the ass when you discover your phone has actually been saving your photos as heic or webp or avif or whatever and hardly anything will open them. I could understand wanting to improve JPEG in the age of dial-up and 1.44MB floppy disks - 60% smaller images could have been a great benefit in those days. But today, even if I'm taking 3…

> I could understand wanting to improve JPEG in the age of dial-up and 1.44MB floppy disks - 60% smaller images could have been a great benefit in those days. But today, even if I'm taking 30 photos every day at 4k resolution, it'd take 20 years to fill up a $50 1TB disk.

60% smaller images are great for hosting providers. We have ample storage and bandwidth compared to the 90s, but it still ain't that cheap.

Re: Request: Re-open JPEG XL issue

#62

Post by PaulHoule » Mon, Aug 07, 2023, 4:28 PM UTC

majormajor wrote: post #54

CharlesW wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

That seems like a bad image for the stuff the OP is talking about - large print high detail stuff - since it's so small, but the AVIF "acceptable" still, even at low res, seems to be clearly throwing away detail compared to the JPEG "acceptable". Look at how the JPEG preserves some of the body seam in the second "l" in RedBull, for instance. So ok, it's a quarter the size, but they aren't showing me how big an AVIF w…

Exactly, that's what I'm talking about.

For some applications people would be really happy with that F1 car image and I would even be happy with it for some applications (e.g. some random image to give spice to a blog) but for my photograph I'd say that's pretty lossy.

Re: Request: Re-open JPEG XL issue

#63

Post by shivz45 » Mon, Aug 07, 2023, 4:29 PM UTC

Exuma wrote: post #60

michaelt wrote: post #58

Personally, I've got no great love for these new image formats. It's always a pain in the ass when you discover your phone has actually been saving your photos as heic or webp or avif or whatever and hardly anything will open them. I could understand wanting to improve JPEG in the age of dial-up and 1.44MB floppy disks - 60% smaller images could have been a great benefit in those days. But today, even if I'm taking 3…

You very clearly don't care about 90% of the rest of the world who doesn't have fast internet you also very clearly don't care about the entire internet experience, at all, whatsoever. Edit: 60% space savings only available in the age of the floppy.... what? 60% cost savings when serving multiple terabytes of image data is useless? You seem to view everything through the extremely tiny lens of a photographer or somet…

2g mobile still running in my country

Re: Request: Re-open JPEG XL issue

#64

Post by throw0101a » Mon, Aug 07, 2023, 4:31 PM UTC

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…

> 4K TV’s use Rec 2020

Is defined by some standard to be able to be declared "4K", or is it just what seems to be happening because all/most of the panel makers just threw it in?

Re: Request: Re-open JPEG XL issue

#65

Post by refulgentis » Mon, Aug 07, 2023, 4:32 PM UTC

Exuma wrote: post #60

michaelt wrote: post #58

Personally, I've got no great love for these new image formats. It's always a pain in the ass when you discover your phone has actually been saving your photos as heic or webp or avif or whatever and hardly anything will open them. I could understand wanting to improve JPEG in the age of dial-up and 1.44MB floppy disks - 60% smaller images could have been a great benefit in those days. But today, even if I'm taking 3…

You very clearly don't care about 90% of the rest of the world who doesn't have fast internet you also very clearly don't care about the entire internet experience, at all, whatsoever. Edit: 60% space savings only available in the age of the floppy.... what? 60% cost savings when serving multiple terabytes of image data is useless? You seem to view everything through the extremely tiny lens of a photographer or somet…

This is extremely aggressive and personal, I suggest editing out the edit.

Re: Request: Re-open JPEG XL issue

#66

Post by Analemma_ » Mon, Aug 07, 2023, 4:35 PM UTC

michaelt wrote: post #58

Personally, I've got no great love for these new image formats. It's always a pain in the ass when you discover your phone has actually been saving your photos as heic or webp or avif or whatever and hardly anything will open them. I could understand wanting to improve JPEG in the age of dial-up and 1.44MB floppy disks - 60% smaller images could have been a great benefit in those days. But today, even if I'm taking 3…

The thing is, you may not care, but web hosts definitely do, especially because cloud providers get you in the door with cheap storage/compute and then gouge you for outgoing bandwidth. Cutting image sizes by 60% when you're serving millions of images adds up to huge $$$ savings.

Re: Request: Re-open JPEG XL issue

#67

Post by rizky05 » Mon, Aug 07, 2023, 4:37 PM UTC

nathan_phoenix wrote: post #3

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.

Can't lose the edge to Tim Apple...

[dead]

Re: Request: Re-open JPEG XL issue

#68

Post by desertlounger » Mon, Aug 07, 2023, 4:38 PM UTC

michaelt wrote: post #58

Personally, I've got no great love for these new image formats. It's always a pain in the ass when you discover your phone has actually been saving your photos as heic or webp or avif or whatever and hardly anything will open them. I could understand wanting to improve JPEG in the age of dial-up and 1.44MB floppy disks - 60% smaller images could have been a great benefit in those days. But today, even if I'm taking 3…

lossless? large sizes? multi-band (> 3) data? transparency? animation? I work in software support of scientific imaging, and jpeg-xl looks to be the only format to date that supports those features in addition to excellent compression and royalty-free licenses (we currently use jpeg-2000 which has no good/fast open-source implementation, we really on an expensive proprietary license with lots of restrictions on redistribution, in fact our industry is largely moving back to TIFF now with the storage factors you mentioned, but using 10x the disk space is non-trivial).

Re: Request: Re-open JPEG XL issue

#69

Post by Knee_Pain » Mon, Aug 07, 2023, 4:39 PM UTC

michaelt wrote: post #58

Personally, I've got no great love for these new image formats. It's always a pain in the ass when you discover your phone has actually been saving your photos as heic or webp or avif or whatever and hardly anything will open them. I could understand wanting to improve JPEG in the age of dial-up and 1.44MB floppy disks - 60% smaller images could have been a great benefit in those days. But today, even if I'm taking 3…

Call me back when 1TB smartphones are $150. Until then, these formats are a life saver. Maybe instead of dragging everyone down you could champion for programs to better their support?

Re: Request: Re-open JPEG XL issue

#70

Post by jokoon » Mon, Aug 07, 2023, 4:42 PM UTC

pornel wrote: post #13

FoxBJK wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think Google's answer to that is WebP.

If anything, it'd be AVIF. WebP is obsolete. It's still based on VP8 codec, which in video has been replaced by VP9 long time ago. AVIF is based on AV1, which is a successor to VP10. So WebP is a few generations behind in the VPx lineage, and is no match for modern codecs.

avif still has patents I think?