Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Google Outlines Why They Are Removing JPEG-XL Support From Chrome

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

  • Originally posted by Artim View Post

    Because the use of HDR in pictures is so common, especially on the web or what? The discussion here isn't really about what format professionals should use, but what makes sense for the web.
    I'm mostly with you but if HDR pictures are good or useful they should be available on the web. There is webcam support on the web, and some other less useful things. Although this puts a stupid and annoying divide between users and even among HDR users that have "wrong"/"bad" or "right"/"good" HDR.

    Originally posted by skeevy420 View Post
    Posts were all "Why bother with that? No one can afford the hardware and only three games support it." and now you can buy television sets with Adaptive Sync. HDR is the same way. Within the next 3-5 years nearly everything will be at least HDR10.
    There will be people with HDR everything and people with HDR nothing. Even Apple users buying a non "pro" laptop or the 5K non HDR display while iphone and macbook pro are HDR. So I might be wrong when predicting but I'm pretty sure people will be stuck to non-HDR or low end HDR monitor in non-HDR mode for many years.
    *But* it probably makes sense to look at pretty things on a HDR TV​

    Comment


    • Originally posted by wswartzendruber View Post
      Well I can confirm that Brave decodes AVIF much, much more quickly than JPEG XL. The test image used was test.png.

      ffmpeg -i test.png -crf 0 -row-mt 1 -tile-columns 2 -tile-rows 2 test.avif

      cjxl -q 100 test.png test.jxl

      Unfortunately, JPEG XL has superior file sizing when maintaining lossless:

      test.png: 8.5 MB
      test.avif: 7.8 MB
      test.jxl: 6.0 MB

      I have verified that AVIF and JPEG XL were lossless here because converting them both to BMP produces files with identical hashes.
      Now does any of the formats have (optional) file extensions to know which kind of file you're getting? because that's three, lossy, lossless and animated. Four with animated lossless if there's that.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Go_Vulkan View Post
        Well, webp is supported in every browser and not "hidden", it just works.
        It is also supported in LibreOffice, Gimp 2.99, content management systems, wiki engines, and so on.

        Any other format would have to be significantly better than webp, not just better than the old JPG. I have used webp for some years now, both the compressed and the lossless version, and I really don't miss anything. Nor do I miss just another format like jpeg xl.
        And software support is a topic, there's discussion about hardware but e.g. an Ubuntu LTS user needs to wait for Ubuntu 24.04 to use webp in documents, as a wallpaper or even in the picture gallery, etc. Worse, many users will skip that LTS and update to 26.04.x when they feel like it.
        And there is Android 8, TVs, ipads. I'm not mad at it but this will take a long while.​
        Last edited by grok; 01 November 2022, 01:12 PM.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by SciK View Post

          This looks like a naturalistic fallacy. Why would HDR not make sense for the web?
          Because all content is in SDR. Sure, iOS and Android are capable to correctly show both HDR and SDR content next to each other (for all I know), but I have no idea how good these implementations are on every other OS, let alone browsers. The situation on Linux definitely still needs quite some improvement. It doesn't make sense arguing for formats with better support for HDR when it can't be displayed correctly. And no, just converting to SDR isn't really a solution since color science is very complex. When software has proven to do those conversions to a satisfactory point, sure go ahead. But before that it doesn't make sense to hope for more use of it, when there actually isn't that much use outside of professional fields to start with. Sure, in movies it makes a lot of sense since they are usually made for cinemas and it can be very challenging to bring them to TVs otherwise. But in photos? I'm not so sure

          Comment


          • Originally posted by grok View Post

            I'm mostly with you but if HDR pictures are good or useful they should be available on the web. There is webcam support on the web, and some other less useful things. Although this puts a stupid and annoying divide between users and even among HDR users that have "wrong"/"bad" or "right"/"good" HDR.​
            The use for Webcam support on the web should be obvious since covid. Sure, you can create a video conferencing solution with clients for at least 5 OSs without making use of WebRTC, but it's much easier with. Since support for it had always been best in Chromium browsers, a simple Electron app should suffice, although I don't know of its capability to also create apps for Android and iOS. But that great use case is still lacking for HDR pictures.

            And like mentioned above, take care of proper HDR and SDR content on an OS and browser level so those pictures wont look off for anybody. Then we can talk about formats with better support than currently available.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Artim View Post

              Like I already said, you really can't tell anybody that you actually believe that if JPEG-XL really was as great as you would like people to believe that Google wouldn't have been the first one to fully implement it. They don't give a rats ass about their own creations when the interest is too low. And if JPEG-XL really was long-term royalty-free and was actually such a massive improvement over anything else, Google Photos would definitely be using it as one of the first services. After all, who wouldn't take the opportunity to massively save storage with pretty much no work. But as you can see, Googles interest is pretty much non-existent. So reality can't be as good as you describe. After all, like every company Google is mainly driven by profit and saving lots of storage and bandwidth with no drawbacks would be a huge profit.
              That's why this also falls into the realm of antitrust. Like you said, Google is driven by profit. Part of the way of ensuring Google gets that profit is to make it easy and free to use Google-provided tools and technology so people will pay them for the rest of their technology ecosystem. WebP is Google's image format based on Google's video format. Because of that, it isn't any surprise that all the rest of the Google ecosystem, like Google Photos, supports that format. Google forcing Photos to use WebP is Google's way to strong-arm the rest of the world into adopting The Google Format, WebP.

              10 or 15 years ago what you said about Google would have been true. That was before they dropped Do No Evil. Now that they're No, Do Evil they don't care about pushing or using the best tech, only pushing or using their tech even if it as the expense of snubbing what's better or going out of their way to suppress their competitor.

              The other part that puts this into antitrust is the person that did the commit is an AVIF contributor that works for Google. Of the modern three standards widely discussed, two are from Google and one isn't and the one that isn't just happened to be yanked by a person that helps write the competing codec. People in that position making those kinds of decisions are why we have antitrust laws.

              I don't know how you can say it with a straight face that it's just a coincidence that the one advanced image codec not coming from Google just happens to be the one codec that Google isn't going to support; especially when JPEG-XL support was pulled by a contributor of one of the competing codecs that Google employs.

              Maybe that guy did it for job security. Maybe Google did it to push their tooling. Either way it sounds like antitrust.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by skeevy420 View Post

                That's why this also falls into the realm of antitrust. Like you said, Google is driven by profit. Part of the way of ensuring Google gets that profit is to make it easy and free to use Google-provided tools and technology so people will pay them for the rest of their technology ecosystem. WebP is Google's image format based on Google's video format. Because of that, it isn't any surprise that all the rest of the Google ecosystem, like Google Photos, supports that format. Google forcing Photos to use WebP is Google's way to strong-arm the rest of the world into adopting The Google Format, WebP.

                10 or 15 years ago what you said about Google would have been true. That was before they dropped Do No Evil. Now that they're No, Do Evil they don't care about pushing or using the best tech, only pushing or using their tech even if it as the expense of snubbing what's better or going out of their way to suppress their competitor.

                The other part that puts this into antitrust is the person that did the commit is an AVIF contributor that works for Google. Of the modern three standards widely discussed, two are from Google and one isn't and the one that isn't just happened to be yanked by a person that helps write the competing codec. People in that position making those kinds of decisions are why we have antitrust laws.

                I don't know how you can say it with a straight face that it's just a coincidence that the one advanced image codec not coming from Google just happens to be the one codec that Google isn't going to support; especially when JPEG-XL support was pulled by a contributor of one of the competing codecs that Google employs.

                Maybe that guy did it for job security. Maybe Google did it to push their tooling. Either way it sounds like antitrust.
                Go ahead, sue Google if you are that sure that it's actually antitrust, see what happens. But please stop promoting that BS here. It's utter nonsense. Not a single half-way democratic country will agree with you as you have nothing but illogical made up proof and didn't even understand how antitrust works in the first place. Nobody can force Google wasting resources on some format nobody uses and that's good.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Artim View Post
                  Because all content is in SDR.
                  It is now, but why would it have to stay that way? That is the point of the naturalistic fallacy.

                  Originally posted by Artim View Post
                  Sure, iOS and Android are capable to correctly show both HDR and SDR content next to each other (for all I know), but I have no idea how good these implementations are on every other OS, let alone browsers.
                  It works well in Chrome on Windows and macOS.

                  Originally posted by Artim View Post
                  The situation on Linux definitely still needs quite some improvement. It doesn't make sense arguing for formats with better support for HDR when it can't be displayed correctly. And no, just converting to SDR isn't really a solution since color science is very complex. When software has proven to do those conversions to a satisfactory point, sure go ahead.
                  The conversion implemented in libjxl itself gives generally quite good results.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by SciK View Post

                    It is now, but why would it have to stay that way? That is the point of the naturalistic fallacy.
                    There simply is no benefit. In movies it's already not that common, especially if you stream. For series, it's pretty much not used at all (if any). The only area where it's kind of used is in games. But even there I don't really see it being used that much. Most people don't even have any devices that can display HDR content properly besides their phone and maybe their TV. So what's the point? Except for another useless hype that will just fizzle out like 3D TVs did.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Artim View Post
                      There simply is no benefit.
                      Have you ever looked at HDR content at all? Some of the benefits are described in section 1 of: https://www.itu.int/pub/R-REP-BT.2390-10-2021

                      Originally posted by Artim View Post
                      In movies it's already not that common, especially if you stream. For series, it's pretty much not used at all (if any).
                      Right, except for: https://hd-report.com/list-of-4k-ult...ws-on-netflix/ But that’s kind of beside the point anyway.

                      Originally posted by Artim View Post
                      Most people don't even have any devices that can display HDR content properly besides their phone and maybe their TV. So what's the point?
                      … To see HDR images on their phone?
                      Last edited by SciK; 01 November 2022, 05:23 PM.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X