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 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.

    Comment


    • 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.

      Comment


      • 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

        Comment


        • 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.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Artim View Post

            Thanks for proving you didn't even read half of my comment, let alone the comment I responded to...
            I read your entire comment, and even included it in my reply. You made two assertions for why MS was forced to do the "choose a brower", and both where 100% wrong.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by grok View Post

              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.
              "Ad boards" as in physical world ad boards. People not using adblockers have just lost control over their lives.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by F.Ultra View Post

                I read your entire comment, and even included it in my reply. You made two assertions for why MS was forced to do the "choose a brower", and both where 100% wrong.
                That just means you didn't read it. Or at least you didn't understand it.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Artim View Post

                  "Ad boards" as in physical world ad boards. People not using adblockers have just lost control over their lives.
                  I don't disagree, but what are you calling an ad board? This would work on these vertical ultrawide displays, and with some expense - make them 5K ultrawide, probably include a light sensor to autocalibrate because nobody will set them up properly.

                  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.
                    It's not antitrust. It's only antitrust if google only supports proprietary formats. In this case, google is choosing between an open format over another open format. Google is more likely pushing for AVIF than Webp and they've already deprecated webp2 too. Nothing is preventing other companies from implementing AVIF or JXL so it does not really stifle competition. It's like choosing between Linux and BSD. Google have already rejected supporting other formats such as HEVC, HEIF and JPEG 2000 so they've been 'anticompetitive' for a long time already. The only thing bad about this is that AVIF is worse than JPEG XL.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by grok View Post

                      I don't disagree, but what are you calling an ad board? This would work on these vertical ultrawide displays, and with some expense - make them 5K ultrawide, probably include a light sensor to autocalibrate because nobody will set them up properly.
                      That would be one possibility. But depending how professional the printing is (that means beyond the capabilities of CMYK) you might need to be able to display something beyond sRGB in order to view it on your screen as it would look like as a finished product.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X