Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

FFmpeg Adds Support For Animated JPEG-XL

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

  • curfew
    replied
    Originally posted by avis View Post



    Define "support".

    Currently Firefox (nightly) kinda supports JPEG-XL except:
    • No color profiles support
    • No progressive decoding support
    • No alpha-channel support (that's very important)
    • No animation support (though I doubt anyone wants it - you've got video codecs for that)
    • No HDR support (that's a deal breaker at least for me)
    And it doesn't look like Firefox developers are too keen to add these features considering near complete silence in the respectful bug reports.

    Apple's support is not complete either but they have a ton of cash to burn, so it's just a matter of their will. Firefox with its slowly dissipating market share doesn't have too much leeway.
    But but but trolls on this forum said Firefox has full JPEG-XL implementation in place but they just don't want to enable it because reasons!!!1

    Leave a comment:


  • quikee
    replied
    Originally posted by ssokolow View Post
    At least with APNG, it's an explicit violation of the PNG spec, which says that the PNG header indicates a file which contains one image and, optionally, alternatively-scaled copies of it.​ (That's why Mozilla has to maintain their own fork of libpng. Because libpng is the reference implementation and you can't upstream changes to the reference implementation which explicitly violate the spec it's a reference implementation for.)
    Well, but you can implement APNG on top of unmodified libpng. I think WebKit does it like that.

    Leave a comment:


  • quikee
    replied
    Originally posted by schmidtbag View Post
    Also gets me to realize:
    A lot of webcams use MJPEG - I figure that format isn't particularly optimized for 4K+ cameras, so what do they use? Or, is the lack of optimization why there are so few of such cameras?
    The format is essentially just a sequence of JPEG images put into a simple container. There is no inter frame prediction and limited block sizes, so it is not very efficient. MPEG1 outperforms it AFAIK - if you remove the artificial limits set by the MPEG1 standard.

    Leave a comment:


  • andyprough
    replied
    Originally posted by TheLexMachine View Post
    Apple wants to implement it because their corporate friends, particularly Adobe, want it to work with their software offerings. They will not use it for their phones any time soon, as they already have HEIF.
    Here's the text of the tweet from Jen Simmons, member of the Web Developer Experience team for Safari and Webkit:
    Yes, Safari 17 supports JPEG XL. On macOS Sonoma, macOS Ventura and macOS Monterey, as well as iOS, iPadOS, watchOS, and soon, visionOS. We also added HEIC — especially for web apps that want to let users edit photos directly from the camera.
    So, looks like jpeg-xl is going to be on the phones, at least in terms of the phone browser.

    Leave a comment:


  • skeevy420
    replied
    Originally posted by cl333r View Post
    I thought a software patent is valid for 20 years?

    Disclaimer: I'm against any software patents ever.
    It is, but that's multiple lifetimes for computers and software. Most products, operating systems, whatever will have multiple iterations in a 20 year period.

    20 years ago was the PS2, Xbox, and Gameboy Advance era. Red Hat became Red Hat Enterprise Linux. Fedora was born. Arch had only existed for a year. BTW, I didn't use Arch back then. Debian and Slackware turned 10. Ubuntu won't exist for another year. macOS was still called OSX and the iMac was discontinued. Windows XP was a few months into SP1 and became the rose-colored glasses edition that everyone remembers so fondly.

    Now we're on the PS5, Switch, and Xbox OneAPI and they're working on the next versions of them all. 8 years ago Microsoft released their last ever version of Windows and called it Windows 10. I'm dual booting Windows 11. Apple started and stopped using x86 during that time.

    Damn, all that nostalgia just made me feel old. 20 years ago I was 17/18.

    Leave a comment:


  • quaz0r
    replied
    jet fuel doesnt melt passports

    Leave a comment:


  • TheLexMachine
    replied
    Originally posted by schmidtbag View Post
    Odd how Apple adds support shortly after Google removes it.

    Also gets me to realize:
    A lot of webcams use MJPEG - I figure that format isn't particularly optimized for 4K+ cameras, so what do they use? Or, is the lack of optimization why there are so few of such cameras?
    MJPEG is used for security camera applications and was used ages ago for webcams. Ever see low-res herky-jerky security cam footage? That's MJPEG usage. H.264 is now used for webcams these days, because it provides an actual synced video stream and there are streaming encoders built into both cams and GPUs, for that specific application.

    Apple wants to implement it because their corporate friends, particularly Adobe, want it to work with their software offerings. They will not use it for their phones any time soon, as they already have HEIF.
    Last edited by TheLexMachine; 08 June 2023, 05:06 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • cl333r
    replied
    Originally posted by skeevy420 View Post

    Yep. From the practical standpoint these days it makes sense to either do it in-house or to go with an open-source/non-patent encumbered format since the other option is licensing and the licensor having you by the balls for perpetuity.
    I thought a software patent is valid for 20 years?

    Disclaimer: I'm against any software patents ever.

    Leave a comment:


  • oleid
    replied
    While I'm not a Chrome user myself, I still believe it's essential that Google reconsiders its stance on JPEG-XL support. By doing so, Google would maintain consistency and compatibility across major browsers, benefiting users, developers, and the broader web community. Let's hope for positive change, in the spirit of progress and widespread adaptation of evolving web technologies.

    Leave a comment:


  • ssokolow
    replied
    Great. A lossy format I now need to support loading, copying the first frame, and saving during the user upload process in order to work around browsers not having something like img { animate: none; }

    At least with APNG, it's an explicit violation of the PNG spec, which says that the PNG header indicates a file which contains one image and, optionally, alternatively-scaled copies of it.​ (That's why Mozilla has to maintain their own fork of libpng. Because libpng is the reference implementation and you can't upstream changes to the reference implementation which explicitly violate the spec it's a reference implementation for.)

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X