Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

GIMP 2.10.34 Released With JPEG XL Export, Some Backports From GIMP 2.99 Series

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • GIMP 2.10.34 Released With JPEG XL Export, Some Backports From GIMP 2.99 Series

    Phoronix: GIMP 2.10.34 Released With JPEG XL Export, Some Backports From GIMP 2.99 Series

    While GIMP 3.0 will hopefully release this year after years of waiting, for those using the current GIMP 2.10 stable series the v2.10.34 release is now available to round out the day...

    Phoronix, Linux Hardware Reviews, Linux hardware benchmarks, Linux server benchmarks, Linux benchmarking, Desktop Linux, Linux performance, Open Source graphics, Linux How To, Ubuntu benchmarks, Ubuntu hardware, Phoronix Test Suite

  • #2
    Nice to see both import and export support for JPEG-XL.
    And nice to see that more and more programs now support JPEG-XL.
    Fuck you Google!

    Comment


    • #3
      Great Flathub has the latest version up already!

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Danny3 View Post
        Nice to see both import and export support for JPEG-XL.
        And nice to see that more and more programs now support JPEG-XL.
        Fuck you Google!
        I think that Pale Moon and Waterfox are still the only browsers that support JPEG-XL though.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by andyprough View Post

          I think that Pale Moon and Waterfox are still the only browsers that support JPEG-XL though.
          I have been out of the loop of browser configuration and programming details for a few years but um why does it matter (as much) these days
          if browser X "supports" some image format?

          In particular if you're a web site controlling the content / web server and you have your vast library of cat pictures in JPEG XL format on the back end
          and someone with the bionic badger browser v7 visits your site and wants to see a page with the images then one would imagine it'd be no
          big deal if one is determined to have that work one could just send the JPEG XL blobs to the client using whatever is trendy today WebSockets or
          XHR or whatever and have ecmascript or wasm or wgl shaders or whatever else one can do these days decode and render them on the client page
          canvas whatever or even convert them to JPG, PNG, WEBM client side and dynamically render that to the DOM / canvas / whatever.

          Way back in the day browsers didn't have say PDF support and if you sent down a MIME type PDF whatever the browser could either invoke a plug in to
          handle that and display it or whatever or save it. Nowadays I gather most all phone / desktop browsers support PDF view etc. but still not (???) as
          a first class citizen encoding but rather something that is decoded and rendered by pdf.js or whatever script decoder / renderer, right?
          But nobody complains browsers don't support PDF.

          Or similarly all the 3D PDF stuff or whatever I guess.

          If people are mining crypto in browser script and playing DOOM from javascript and whatever else I'd think merely decoding a few megabytes or less of
          JPEG XL isn't going to be a hardship for any major desktop browser / system and probably the top ~40%(?) of tablets / phones etc. excepting the very least powerful
          devices where maybe memory or CPU speed or something could be a problem compared to something with better native code CODEC support and maybe
          even hardware accelerated decode parts.

          But uh JIT, WASM, shaders, etc. etc. does lack of native code CODEC really cripple decode of static non video content these days even for modest mobile platforms
          in the smart phone / tablet category?

          The last few generations of smartphones I've been around have have had more compute & graphics power than what I used to call a desktop / workstation in
          the 1990-2007 time frame IIRC.

          But yeah I get it standardized support for standardized interchange formats is good and I totally get
          people that may want to disable scripts and client side features for security and respite from the ad-mal-ware etc. so it does
          make something that could be ~ubiquitous only work seamlessly for 70% or whatever of the clients but still it doesn't seem like the lack
          of google's blessing prevents the serving and viewing of this format at scale any more than lack of a PDF plugin native app MIME handler does.



          Comment


          • #6
            With all the backporting, I guess 2.10 will stay a bit longer. But I still hope they could release 3.0 by fall

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by andyprough View Post

              I think that Pale Moon and Waterfox are still the only browsers that support JPEG-XL though.
              Firefox should support it too if you activate the support from about:config.
              But I think somebody said that even if you do that, the support is incomplete as Firefox doesn't support all the featurres of JPEG-XL.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by pong View Post
                In particular if you're a web site controlling the content / web server and you have your vast library of cat pictures in JPEG XL format on the back end
                and someone with the bionic badger browser v7 visits your site and wants to see a page with the images then one would imagine it'd be no
                big deal if one is determined to have that work one could just send the JPEG XL blobs to the client using whatever is trendy today WebSockets or
                XHR or whatever and have ecmascript or wasm or wgl shaders or whatever else one can do these days decode and render them on the client page
                canvas whatever or even convert them to JPG, PNG, WEBM client side and dynamically render that to the DOM / canvas / whatever.​
                I'm sure websites are capable of doing lots of things. However, specific jpeg-xl images cannot be viewed in browsers that don't support the format - I do know that from testing them.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by andyprough View Post

                  I think that Pale Moon and Waterfox are still the only browsers that support JPEG-XL though.
                  Thorium, a Chromium fork has re-added the support too...

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    I tried exporting an image as *.jxl, there isn't a save dialog with options, and the file is saved as lossless. As the release notes say. Not super useful yet.

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X