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

  • Go_Vulkan
    replied
    Originally posted by pepoluan View Post
    friend of mine lamented loudly to me
    I think the first question should be: why does your friend do such odd things, everybody else would use tiles.
    Last edited by Go_Vulkan; 30 June 2023, 02:44 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Artim
    replied
    Originally posted by pepoluan View Post
    A friend of mine routinely generates images up to 24000x24000 that doesn't compress well with PNG, compress really well with JPEG but losing transparency, and doesn't compress at all using WebP because WebP is limited in resolution.

    Edit: Yes, earlier I did say WebP is good enough. Until said friend of mine lamented loudly to me and I did a deep dive. Now I've changed my mind.
    Then he might just try AVIF, it supports both transparency and much larger pictures. And is still supported by more software than jxl

    Leave a comment:


  • pepoluan
    replied
    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.
    A friend of mine routinely generates images up to 24000x24000 that doesn't compress well with PNG, compress really well with JPEG but losing transparency, and doesn't compress at all using WebP because WebP is limited in resolution.

    Edit: Yes, earlier I did say WebP is good enough. Until said friend of mine lamented loudly to me and I did a deep dive. Now I've changed my mind.
    Last edited by pepoluan; 28 June 2023, 07:47 AM. Reason: yes, I've changed my mind

    Leave a comment:


  • Artim
    replied
    Originally posted by Dasein View Post
    Apple has joined the three suffix gang aka tsg
    Because Apple ever had a browser leading in anything but lack of actually interesting features? You're funny

    Leave a comment:


  • Dasein
    replied
    Apple has joined the three suffix gang aka tsg

    Leave a comment:


  • Artim
    replied
    Originally posted by timtas View Post

    webp sucks for once because it has a four-letter suffix. Cool formats always have a three-letter suffix. So. jxl is much better in this respect. Also saves 25% on suffix-related disk-space compared to webp.
    That must be it. How could we have been so blind. That's why odt, ods etc are much better than docx, xlsx etc. Lol

    Leave a comment:


  • timtas
    replied
    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.
    webp sucks for once because it has a four-letter suffix. Cool formats always have a three-letter suffix. So. jxl is much better in this respect. Also saves 25% on suffix-related disk-space compared to webp.

    Leave a comment:


  • Quackdoc
    replied
    Originally posted by Artim View Post
    MS being granted an obviously prior art patent for a technology found in many current compression techniques is probably reason enough to sit back and just wait.
    it's not google devs and employees have already stated on multiple channels that google is comfortable with implementing JXL. this is entirely the decision of butthurt prideful idiots.

    EDIT: not to mention that JXL has defensive patents, meaning that if MS were to come out and say that they wanna be a patent troll, google's patents in it would kick in and prevent MS from using JXL, which I highly doubt they would like
    Last edited by Quackdoc; 09 December 2022, 06:29 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Artim
    replied
    Originally posted by brucethemoose View Post

    I still dont think this is about interest at all, I suspect its at least one AOM dev (namely the one who authored the original commit) sniping support because they think AVIF makes JXL obsolete.
    At least they don't have any use for it themselves. And they have no interest in being lured into a trap to pay royalties. MS being granted an obviously prior art patent for a technology found in many current compression techniques is probably reason enough to sit back and just wait.

    Leave a comment:


  • Quackdoc
    replied
    Originally posted by brucethemoose View Post

    I still dont think this is about interest at all, I suspect its at least one AOM dev (namely the one who authored the original commit) sniping support because they think AVIF makes JXL obsolete.
    nah, did you see the data they posted? they know for a fact that it doesn't but their pride won't let them have a better alternative

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X