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

  • SciK
    replied
    Originally posted by Artim View Post
    This not about HDR in movies, it's about simple pictures.
    So? If you had read the resource provided, you would have noticed that by and large, the advantages apply to pictures as well.

    Originally posted by Artim View Post
    Like I said, not that many. Not if you compare to the whole catalogue of Netflix.
    Right, let’s compare the adoption of a relatively new technology to a full catalogue of several decades, because that makes sense. So HDR is only relevant if all that existing content is re-graded?
    ST0OOgw.png

    Originally posted by Artim View Post
    Besides, this list is probably for the US. Not every country gets all content, also content leaves Netflix all the time. Plus you can only watch them in HDR on the most expensive plan. Sure, I don't have official numbers, but I doubt that's the majority of users.
    I am not sure I see how HDR series requiring the most expensive Netflix plan is relevant to whether HDR pictures on the web make sense.

    Originally posted by Artim View Post
    And we are back to the topic of why.
    Because it looks better and more realistic. Here is a relevant figure on user preference, from that report you did not read:
    preferences.png

    Originally posted by Artim View Post
    Like already explained, it does make sense for movies, but I don't see the point in pictures, other than something like the production of professional content like ad boards.
    You have not “explained” anything. You have merely stated your opinion as some sort of self-evident truth. You may not see the point, but many do (e.g. Adobe).
    Last edited by SciK; 01 November 2022, 07:10 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Quackdoc
    replied
    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.
    we dont have any useful HDR picture format, which is why we dont see any on the web

    Leave a comment:


  • grok
    replied
    Originally posted by Artim View Post
    ​​​​​​​And we are back to the topic of why. Like already explained, it does make sense for movies, but I don't see the point in pictures, other than something like the production of professional content like ad boards.
    So you need HDR pictures to display HDR ads on phones. We're making progress. I'm sure you'll hate it but, you won't see the HDR in print or on outdoor displays.

    Leave a comment:


  • Artim
    replied
    Originally posted by SciK View Post

    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
    This not about HDR in movies, it's about simple pictures.


    Right, except for: https://hd-report.com/list-of-4k-ult...ws-on-netflix/ But that’s kind of beside the point anyway.
    Like I said, not that many. Not if you compare to the whole catalogue of Netflix. Besides, this list is probably for the US. Not every country gets all content, also content leaves Netflix all the time. Plus you can only watch them in HDR on the most expensive plan. Sure, I don't have official numbers, but I doubt that's the majority of users.


    … To see HDR images on their phone?
    ​​​​​​​And we are back to the topic of why. Like already explained, it does make sense for movies, but I don't see the point in pictures, other than something like the production of professional content like ad boards.

    Leave a comment:


  • SciK
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Artim
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • SciK
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Artim
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • skeevy420
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Artim
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X