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

JPEG XL Test Page

tildeweb.nl

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 170 posts

Re: JPEG XL Test Page

#71

Post by F3nd0 »

unglaublich wrote: post #22

I think JPEG XL's naming was unfortunate. People want to associate new image formats with leanness, lightness, efficiency.

It seems to me this point of discussion always tends to get way too much focus. Should it really raise concern?

Of all the people who interact with image formats in some way, how many do even know what an image format is? How many even notice they’ve got different names? How many even give them any consideration? And out of those, how many are immediately going to think JPEG XL must be big, heavy and inefficient? And out of those, how many are going to stop there without considering that maybe the new image format could actually be pretty good? Sure, there might be some, but I really don’t think it’s a fraction of a significant size.

Moreover, how many people in said fraction are going to remember the name (and thus perhaps the format) far more easily by remembering it’s got such a stupid name?

Re: JPEG XL Test Page

#72

Post by NekkoDroid »

crazygringo wrote: post #62
HlessClaudesman wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Crappy as a .jpg, only bigger. Actually, I remember when JPEG XL came out, and I just thought: cool, file that one away for when I have a really big image I need to display. Which turned out to be never. Names have consequences.

> Crappy as a .jpg, only bigger. Honestly, that's exactly what it sounds like to me too. I know it's not, but it's still what it sounds like. And it's just way too many letters total. When we have "giff" and "ping" as one-syllable names, "jay-peg-ex-ell" is unfortunate. Really should have been an entirely new name, rather than extending what is already an ugly acronym.

I always have called it PNG pee-en-ji, and JPEG XL for me has p much all the time been jay-x-el.

Re: JPEG XL Test Page

#73

Post by spider-mario »

fleabitdev wrote: post #57
unglaublich wrote: post #22

I think JPEG XL's naming was unfortunate. People want to associate new image formats with leanness, lightness, efficiency.

There was a constraint - since 2009, the Joint Photographic Experts Group had published JPEG XR, JPEG XT and JPEG XS, and they were probably reluctant to break that naming scheme. They're running out of good options, but I hope they stick with it long enough to release "JPEG XP" :-)

Incidentally, JPEG Vista would be thematically appropriate.

Re: JPEG XL Test Page

#74

Post by jonsneyers »

fleabitdev wrote: post #57
unglaublich wrote: post #22

I think JPEG XL's naming was unfortunate. People want to associate new image formats with leanness, lightness, efficiency.

There was a constraint - since 2009, the Joint Photographic Experts Group had published JPEG XR, JPEG XT and JPEG XS, and they were probably reluctant to break that naming scheme. They're running out of good options, but I hope they stick with it long enough to release "JPEG XP" :-)

JPEG XP would have been a nice name for a successor of JPEG 2000, I suppose :)

There's also a JPEG XE now (https://jpeg.org/jpegxe/index.html), by the way.

Re: JPEG XL Test Page

#75

Post by amarant »

wmwragg wrote: post #65
adzm wrote: post #34

Honestly I was hoping for a page showing off more of jpeg xl features rather than just a single image

You probably want the JPEG XL Info[1] site then. A nice site outlining what JPEG XL actually is. [1] https://jpegxl.info/

While I get why, it bugs me that they have comparison images between jxl and other formats, yet it doesn't actually use jxl, as evidenced by all images displaying correctly on my chrome browser.

Re: JPEG XL Test Page

#78

Post by p_ing »

RicoElectrico wrote: post #39
p_ing wrote: post #2

Orion, and presumably other Webkit-based browsers that are actually up-to-date, can also see the image. Hopefully my photo processor will accept JPEG XL in the near future!

> Hopefully my photo processor will accept JPEG XL in the near future! Aren't print shops, machining shops, other small manufacturers etc. ones that always lag behind with emerging technologies?

Yes, because those systems cost gobs of money. You don't replace them just for the hot new thing.

Re: JPEG XL Test Page

#79

Post by jonsneyers »

recursive wrote: post #53
zamadatix wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

JPEG XS :D

Excess?!? I certainly don't want any of that in my image encoding formats!

Exactly. Image compression should excel at avoiding excess.

Though maybe some people think the JPEG committee is now creating spreadsheet formats...

Post reply on HN