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

  • #21
    Originally posted by wswartzendruber View Post
    In my estimation, a WebAssembly shim for JPEG XL will likely outperform native AVIF decoding backed by AVX2.

    I wonder how large such a shim would be. Perhaps it could be hosted in a shared location, and therefore cached by our browsers.
    right now AVIF decodes far faster then any jpegxl decoder, but that could easily change in the future, dav1d is just really, really good

    Originally posted by JanC View Post

    JPEG XL & WEBP/AVIF cater to different audiences really, so I'm not sure how that would make sense.
    they don't, an image is an image which is an image, AVIF can also do animations really well, but in the end jpegxl should be used pretty much everywhere that isnt an animation​.

    Comment


    • #22
      Originally posted by Quackdoc View Post
      Fellas, creating an account and leaving a comment is free, if you want to see them maybe backtrack, I would reccomend doing it
      Zero fucks will be given to all the spam in their bug tracker. Trust me.

      Even Mozilla has stopped paying attention to it years ago. And when the community objected to some of their decisions the respective issues were simply locked.

      Comment


      • #23
        Originally posted by JanC View Post

        JPEG XL & WEBP/AVIF cater to different audiences really, so I'm not sure how that would make sense.
        JPEG XL supersedes and makes both irrelevant.

        Comment


        • #24
          Originally posted by wswartzendruber View Post
          In my estimation, a WebAssembly shim for JPEG XL will likely outperform native AVIF decoding backed by AVX2.

          I wonder how large such a shim would be. Perhaps it could be hosted in a shared location, and therefore cached by our browsers.
          The size of it is irrelevant, I bet you can implement the entire JPEG XL spec in less than 200KB of web assembly which is nothing nowadays. The only issue is performance. JPEG decoding is HW accelerated, PNG and GIF are very easy to decode.

          Originally posted by JanC View Post

          But that’s not its main appeal.

          AVIF/WEBP can take frames from AV1/VP8/VP9 videos without any need for re-encoding, which can be really useful.

          From what I understand JPEG XL can do some things that the other image formats can’t do, even if sometimes those are mostly only useful for niche markets.

          Hence why their markets don't overlap 100%.
          I frames? Maybe, never seen it though. B/P frames? Never. Anyways, I've never seen AVIF/WebP taking frames from videos. It's such a niche use it's not even worth mentioning.

          Comment


          • #25
            Google sees something isn't immediately immensely popular in the first five minutes after launching it and decides it's not worth keeping.
            Same reason they killed off Stadia, it wasn't immediately popular so instead of actually trying to carry it, they just cut off all support and ditched it.

            Comment


            • #26
              Originally posted by Quackdoc View Post

              right now AVIF decodes far faster then any jpegxl decoder, but that could easily change in the future, dav1d is just really, really good
              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.

              Comment


              • #27
                Originally posted by birdie View Post

                JPEG XL supersedes and makes both irrelevant.
                Except where you can take frames from videos without having to re-encode them…

                But I agree that otherwise JPEG XL (or some other image format based on the same technology) could be a format that eventually supersedes most other formats.

                Comment


                • #28
                  Originally posted by birdie View Post
                  I frames? Maybe, never seen it though. B/P frames? Never. Anyways, I've never seen AVIF/WebP taking frames from videos. It's such a niche use it's not even worth mentioning.
                  It would be very useful for sites like YouTube that show frames when you hover over the seek bar…

                  Comment


                  • #29
                    Originally posted by Ironmask View Post
                    Google sees something isn't immediately immensely popular in the first five minutes after launching it and decides it's not worth keeping.
                    Same reason they killed off Stadia, it wasn't immediately popular so instead of actually trying to carry it, they just cut off all support and ditched it.
                    Stadia was killed because it was priced poorly but Google never realized it. In order to play you needed to repurchase everything and everything purchased on Stadia wasn't transferrable to other platforms (e.g. Steam, EGS, Origin, Uplay, Microsoft games, etc).

                    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.
                    I asked Google to look into a poor lossless AVIF compression over two years ago (it's significantly worse than WebP). Zero fucks have been given which means Google is lying about JPEG-XL. Of course there's WebP2 but looking at its commit history it looks like it's nearly dead.
                    Last edited by birdie; 30 October 2022, 09:56 PM.

                    Comment


                    • #30
                      Originally posted by Quackdoc

                      no, but it would be nice to piss off the pig headed idiots who decided this.​​
                      The big heads don't give a damn about SPAM in their bug trackers. They are not subscribed to it.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X