91–100 of 144 posts
> Chrome Jpegxl Issue Reopened > (this is the tracking bug for this feature) Is it just me -- or it's confusing to use the terms issue / bug / feature interchangeably?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?)
If you want to avoid eye pain then you want caps on how much brightness can be in what percent of the image, not to throw the baby out with the bathwater and disable it entirely. 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 prob…
JPEG-XL provides the best migration path for image conversion from JPEG, with lossless recompression. It also supports arbitrary HDR bit depths (up to 32 bits per channel) unlike AVIF, and generally its HDR support is much better than AVIF. Other operating systems and applications were making strides towards adopting this format, but Google was up till now stubbornly holding the web back in their refusal to support J…
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…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Some years ago, the Google Photos team asked the Chrome team to support JXL, so that they could use it for Photos. The request was ignored, of course.
They could have added support themselves to the app as it doesn't use the WebView
Why are we going backward?
"Yes, re-opening.". > Given these positive signals, we would welcome contributions to integrate a performant and memory-safe JPEG XL decoder in Chromium. In order to enable it by default in Chromium we would need a commitment to long-term maintenance. With those and our usual launch criteria met, we would ship it in Chrome. https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/g/blink-dev/c/WjCKc...
LOL. Google, the "yeah that thing we bought six months ago, we're killing it off 30 days for 4 weeks ago" company demanding "long-term" anything.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?)
If you want to avoid eye pain then you want caps on how much brightness can be in what percent of the image, not to throw the baby out with the bathwater and disable it entirely. 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 prob…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How about websites just straight up aren't allowed to physically hurt me, by default ?
Web sites aren’t made for just you. If images from your screen are causing you issues, that is a you / your device problem, not a web site problem.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Just like google pledges long term support for everything until the next new and shiny comes along.
I think Chrome can safely be said to have a track record of long term investment.