81–90 of 144 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How about websites just straight up aren't allowed to physically hurt me, by default ?
You asked “which web browsers have a setting to tone map HDR images such that they look like SDR images?”; I answered. Were you not actually looking for a solution?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
long term support is actually being provided by google... just a different team in a different country :D most jxl devs are at google research in zurich, and already pledged to handle long tetm support
Just like google pledges long term support for everything until the next new and shiny comes along.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not just Google, Mozilla has no desire to introduce a barely supported massive C++ decoder for marginal gains either: https://github.com/mozilla/standards-positions/pull/1064 avif is just better for typical web image quality, it produces better looking images and its artifacts aren't as annoying (smoothing instead of blocking and ringing around sharp edges). You also get it for basically free because it's just a…
"Marginal Gains" Generation Loss – JPEG, WebP, JPEG XL, AVIF : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w7UDJUCMTng
(Also I am highly skeptical of the importance of these generation loss tests.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Marginal Gains" Generation Loss – JPEG, WebP, JPEG XL, AVIF : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w7UDJUCMTng
Marginal gains over AVIF. (Also I am highly skeptical of the importance of these generation loss tests.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How about a user stylesheet that uses https://www.w3.org/TR/css-color-hdr-1/#the-dynamic-range-lim... ?
How about websites just straight up aren't allowed to physically hurt me, by default ?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
long term support is actually being provided by google... just a different team in a different country :D most jxl devs are at google research in zurich, and already pledged to handle long tetm support
Just like google pledges long term support for everything until the next new and shiny comes along.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's nothing stopping browsers from tone mapping[1] those HDR images using your tone mapping preference. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tone_mapping
What does that achieve? Isn't it simpler to just not support HDR than to support HDR but tone map away the HDR effect? Anyway, which web browsers have a setting to tone map HDR images such that they look like SDR images? (And why should "don't physically hurt my eyes" be an opt-in setting anyway instead of just the default?)
And if you're speaking from iphone experience, my understanding is the main problem there isn't extra bright things in the image, it's the renderer ignoring your brightness settings when HDR shows up, which is obviously stupid and not a problem with HDR in general.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not just Google, Mozilla has no desire to introduce a barely supported massive C++ decoder for marginal gains either: https://github.com/mozilla/standards-positions/pull/1064 avif is just better for typical web image quality, it produces better looking images and its artifacts aren't as annoying (smoothing instead of blocking and ringing around sharp edges). You also get it for basically free because it's just a…
Can AVIF display 10 bit HDR with larger color gamut that any modern phone nowadays is capable of capturing?
Sure, 12-bit too, with HDR transfer functions (PQ and HLG), wide-gamut primaries (BT.2020, P3, etc.), and high-dynamic-range metadata (ITU/CTA mastering metadata, content light level metadata).
JPEG XL matches or exceeds these capabilities on paper, but not in practice. The reality is that the world is going to support the JPEG XL capabilities that Apple supports, and probably not much more.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think there's a difference here. If I right click save and get a webp, it was probably converted from JPG. Very very few images are uploaded in webp. So getting a webp image means you've downloaded an inferior version. JXL doesn't have this issue because conversion from jpeg is lossless. So you've still gotten the real, fully-quality image.
Let's be realistic - when most users are upset they got a .webp, they're not annoyed because of quality-loss, they're annoyed because they can't immediately use it in many other services & software.