Darktable 4.2 Released With JPEG-XL Support

[quikee]

JPEG-XL can easily be supported in advanced post-processing software and image viewers - where it belongs - as an HQ archival/presentation format for "finished" images created from RAW files. It will have no place as an in-camera file output format, because the camera companies that dominate the consumer and professional market (Sony, Canon, Nikon, Olympus, and Fuji) won't use a standardized replacement for their proprietary image processing with secret-sauce-filled RAW formats, something which had already been tried (Adobe DNG) in the early days of mass-adopted digital photography.

A lot of camera companies have a very good in-camera processing so the images you get satisfy a lot of photographers SOOC (straight out of camera) and a lot of photographers don't want to mess with RAW file post-processing as it consumes a lot of time. Fuji is specially popular for that with their film simulations. The problem is JPEG is quite limiting of a format for that (limited to 8 bit - realistically 6.5 bit) and HEIC isn't much better either (10-bit) when cameras can capture 12 and 14-bit worth of data. JPEG XL would be perfect for that but they won't use it, because they are conservative and inept camera companies.

[intelfx]

It is sort of strange to see some JPEG-XL support on this site considering how many AOM supporters are here.

I would rather hope for people to be "supporters" of specific technologies, not groups.

[Quackdoc]

JPEG-XL can easily be supported in advanced post-processing software and image viewers - where it belongs - as an HQ archival/presentation format for "finished" images created from RAW files. It will have no place as an in-camera file output format, because the camera companies that dominate the consumer and professional market (Sony, Canon, Nikon, Olympus, and Fuji) won't use a standardized replacement for their proprietary image processing with secret-sauce-filled RAW formats, something which had already been tried (Adobe DNG) in the early days of mass-adopted digital photography.

JXL wouldn't replace RAW. it simply doesn't have the necessary information for doing that, what it DOES replace on the otherhand is "Easy" mode photography in the entry professional and non professional spaces. JXL is already IMO the only good format to use for HDR photography. I would say the majority of camera usage, whether it be point and shoots dslr or phone camera's are still saving images in HEIC or JPG. with some probably saving webp (hope not too common...).

JXL is IMO will quickly become the only viable image format for these kinds of picture taking in the future for quite some time to come.

[TheLexMachine]

JPEG-XL can easily be supported in advanced post-processing software and image viewers - where it belongs - as an HQ archival/presentation format for "finished" images created from RAW files. It will have no place as an in-camera file output format, because the camera companies that dominate the consumer and professional market (Sony, Canon, Nikon, Olympus, and Fuji) won't use a standardized replacement for their proprietary image processing with secret-sauce-filled RAW formats, something which had already been tried (Adobe DNG) in the early days of mass-adopted digital photography.

[splatterlight]

Is there any way someone could add it back through an add-on?

jxl_dec.wasm is only 800kb and takes several seconds to decode a large file. I can see photo sites using that to punish you for not installing their app.

[Slartifartblast]

Not really: JPEG-XL stores jpeg files (on average) using less space than the originals, while producing bit-for-bit identical copies of the resultant image when expanded. This is useful when you are storing lots of jpeg files: it can save you monetarily significant amounts of space. Cameras don't have to support JPEG-XL for it to be useful.

However it matters for widespread adoption, personally I'd very much like to see it adopted by camera manufacturers as I don't want to always shoot in RAW and the large files it generates.

[Quackdoc]

Lossy WebP is also limited to 4:2:0 only, which is IMHO a worse limitation than just being limited to 8-bit as even JPEG has 4:4:4 mode. Also isn't WebP using TV range YCrCb colorspace (same as JPEG), which is in reality only about 6.5 bit per channel...

Im not sure, not something i looked into since the rest of the issues were deal breakers anyway

I think the problem with JPEG-XL is the patent status (in particular the ones owned by Microsoft) rather than any malfeasance by Google.

I am always wary of new formats though, so I may be worried unnecessarily. JPEG and PNG are patent free, and we should only move to other patent free formats (especially if it only saves 50% disk space and has no other real advantages that normal people care about)

it's not a problem, Google and cloudinary both hold defensive patents on it, meaning MS would never be able to use JXL should they sue, which they would never do. if anything assuming the patent does apply, MS would more then likely join google and cloudinary in defending it. imagine if we do succeed in getting chrome and the greater web to adopt JXL, but edge didn't have the legal right to support it. same with outlook and any other MS product.

[piotrj3]

I think the problem with JPEG-XL is the patent status (in particular the ones owned by Microsoft) rather than any malfeasance by Google.

I am always wary of new formats though, so I may be worried unnecessarily. JPEG and PNG are patent free, and we should only move to other patent free formats (especially if it only saves 50% disk space and has no other real advantages that normal people care about)

JpegXL has much more clearer situation then for example AVIF that depends on patents of AV1 that are contested by patent trolls like Sisvel.

[Estranged1906]

I wish for three things:
1. Some major browser enabling JPEG XL by default, whether it's Firefox, Safari or Edge doesn't even matter. (So far only Pale Moon and Waterfox support JXL).
2. Some major websites with lots of pictures - maybe Facebook, Instagram, Twitter? - to use JXL with a polyfill script to convert it to JPG for unsupported browsers. Ideally with a banner warning that "Chrome is not supported" or something.
3. Camera and smartphone makers (Samsung? Xiaomi?) using JXL as the default format rather than JPEG like now.

[OneTimeShot]

I think the problem with JPEG-XL is the patent status (in particular the ones owned by Microsoft) rather than any malfeasance by Google.

I am always wary of new formats though, so I may be worried unnecessarily. JPEG and PNG are patent free, and we should only move to other patent free formats (especially if it only saves 50% disk space and has no other real advantages that normal people care about)