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

  • #31
    There is not enough interest from the entire ecosystem to continue experimenting with JPEG XL
    I would inquire about their methodology for ascertaining this.

    Also, it's not an impossibility that Chrome eventually supports it. If the format can gain enough traction and browsers like Firefox and Safari eventually support it, then I think Chrome might someday come along.

    In the meantime, I'd suggest looking at WebGPU to accelerate inline decoding, with a straight WebASM fallback.

    Comment


    • #32
      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
      Worth doing, if you feel you have something of value to say. Otherwise, I wouldn't bother. Leaving a bunch of trolling comments will only serve to dilute anything truly compelling people have to contribute.

      IMO, there's about 0.1% of them immediately reversing course. I'd focus on the long game.

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by wswartzendruber View Post
        JPEG XL has superior file sizing when maintaining lossless
        Originally posted by Quackdoc
        JXL is indeed far better at lossless stills​​
        ​On the subject of lossless, note that AVIF not only does not support the RGB color space but maxes out at 12bit-per-channel. This is particularly problematic when one considers that PNG's bit depths are in powers of 2, so the next highest bit depth above 8bit-per-channel PNG is 16bit-per-channel PNG.

        (by contrast, JPEG XL supports as high as 24bit-per-channel as well as 32bit floating point-per-channel, the latter presumably with 24bits of precision and 8bits of floating point in a manner similar to 32bit floating point audio, but don't quote me on this)

        EDIT: oh and for reference to those unaware, PNG only supports the RGB color space (well, at least when dealing with non-greyscale images since those are basically just full-range "Y" by itself as in the 'Y' used in YUV)
        Last edited by NM64; 30 October 2022, 10:52 PM.

        Comment


        • #34
          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.
          I think the primary, though eventual benefit of AVIF would be hardware accelerated decoding on most platforms (due to them presumably incorporating hardware AV1 decoders). In particular, I'm sure they care a lot about energy efficiency of decoding on phones.

          Comment


          • #35
            I suppose from a web prospective AV1F makes sense.

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by coder View Post
              I would inquire about their methodology for ascertaining this.

              Also, it's not an impossibility that Chrome eventually supports it. If the format can gain enough traction and browsers like Firefox and Safari eventually support it, then I think Chrome might someday come along.

              In the meantime, I'd suggest looking at WebGPU to accelerate inline decoding, with a straight WebASM fallback.
              Chrome and its forks currently control over 85% of the web browser market. That instantly means whatever specific format Firefox supports will never gain any traction.

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by jacob View Post
                I suppose from a web prospective AV1F makes sense.
                At least with non-uber-fast connections, JPEG-XL is in fact much more ideally suited from a web perspective:
                Enjoy the videos and music you love, upload original content, and share it all with friends, family, and the world on YouTube.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by coder View Post
                  I think the primary, though eventual benefit of AVIF would be hardware accelerated decoding on most platforms (due to them presumably incorporating hardware AV1 decoders). In particular, I'm sure they care a lot about energy efficiency of decoding on phones.
                  Some SoCs have JPEG decoders, if JPEG-XL became popular then they would add support for that format as well.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by archsway View Post
                    Some SoCs have JPEG decoders,
                    That's a trivial bitstream decoder (if they even do that part in hardware) and then just DCT/IDCT that they'd need for other compression formats, as well.

                    Originally posted by archsway View Post
                    if JPEG-XL became popular then they would add support for that format as well.
                    ​JPEG-XL is a lot more complex and has more esoteric features. It would also be a highly speculative and long-range gamble to bet on JPEG-XL acceleration, whereas it's virtually guaranteed that SoCs will have hardware acceleration for AV1 decoding.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by NM64 View Post

                      At least with non-uber-fast connections, JPEG-XL is in fact much more ideally suited from a web perspective:
                      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UphN1_7nP8U
                      But the point is that since AV1 support is becoming universal, AV1F is a given everywhere.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X