Google Chrome/Chromium Goes Ahead In Removing JPEG-XL Support

[Quackdoc]

Sure, I understand how ISO works. I'm just saying that it's an undesirable state of affairs and that it's a clear negative vis-a-vis competitor formats.

I know that I can find the document somewhere for free if I need to but that's not the point. And no, the code isn't good enough.

the issue is that those are issues all over the board, it's not an issue special to JXL, and the draft version of the document is still better then the v1 document anyways

[Dasein]

Such a shame :/

[xorbe]

Remember when software used to brag about being able to decode as many image formats as possible, Pepperidge Farm remembers.

[brad0]

Remember when software used to brag about being able to decode as many image formats as possible, Pepperidge Farm remembers.

The way you worded that was never a thing, especially with web browsers.

[brucethemoose]

A developer published some tests comparing image codecs that shows JPEG-XL being mediocre, opposing most prior benchmarks from others:
http://storage.googleapis.com/avif-c...son/index.html

I find this particularly eyebrow raising because AVIF was not even beating x264/x265 encoded lossless frames last time I checked. It was truly atrocious at anything lossless, not on par with webp.

[Dasein]

I wonder what the odds are on us being about to make them reverse course on this are 🤔

[Quackdoc]

I wonder what the odds are on us being about to make them reverse course on this are 🤔

very easy, in fact, the simple solution is to just use jxl whenever possible. force chrome into implementing it, ofc this would go a whole lot better if firefox supported it, (but asking firefox to support any feature is a big LOL).

will it happen is the question, JXL is highly desirable for cameras, however the biggest issue right now is with android support, many desktop apps support jpegXL, but I have yet to see a semi decent image application support it for mobile, and we can effectively write off IOS here. same as chrome need to be forced into it.

the single largest step however would be firefox support. if firefox want's to keep up any semblance of them being a useful browser, they pretty much need to implement JXL, considering that the single largest argument for using firefox is "it prevents chrome from having a monopoly and dictating the direction of the internet". IF firefox wants to convince people that this is still remotely true. them implementing JXL is a necessity.

that being said, I have zero faith that mozilla would do that as JXL has a couple very meaningful patches just sitting in firefox's phabricator since 2021. and no futher effort seems to be put into JXL in making it useful, so I highly doubt firefox will implement JXL support. despite this being something that could legitimately be big for their popularity.

but for now, hope for an android app to come along, swap to that, and just use JXL whenever possible. google and probably various other applications collects metrics on file types, so it's worth doing.

[skeevy420]

very easy, in fact, the simple solution is to just use jxl whenever possible. force chrome into implementing it, ofc this would go a whole lot better if firefox supported it, (but asking firefox to support any feature is a big LOL).

will it happen is the question, JXL is highly desirable for cameras, however the biggest issue right now is with android support, many desktop apps support jpegXL, but I have yet to see a semi decent image application support it for mobile, and we can effectively write off IOS here. same as chrome need to be forced into it.

the single largest step however would be firefox support. if firefox want's to keep up any semblance of them being a useful browser, they pretty much need to implement JXL, considering that the single largest argument for using firefox is "it prevents chrome from having a monopoly and dictating the direction of the internet". IF firefox wants to convince people that this is still remotely true. them implementing JXL is a necessity.

that being said, I have zero faith that mozilla would do that as JXL has a couple very meaningful patches just sitting in firefox's phabricator since 2021. and no futher effort seems to be put into JXL in making it useful, so I highly doubt firefox will implement JXL support. despite this being something that could legitimately be big for their popularity.

but for now, hope for an android app to come along, swap to that, and just use JXL whenever possible. google and probably various other applications collects metrics on file types, so it's worth doing.

I hope that some imaging company like Canon, Nikon, Pentax, etc start adding JXL to their cameras or if Sony adds it to their sensor firmware, cameras, and phones. Now that JXL is fully spec'd with an open-source reference some bigger consumer-focused company might start picking it up and adding it to Android because Alphabet probably won't add JXL support.

I fully agree with that Firefox comment. Without Mozilla's competition, Google would be able to dictate everything for everyone on the internet and Google doing a change like this against so many peoples' wishes shows how much flex Google actually has. I looked into it and the other company behind JXL is a company called Cloudinary that in some ways competes with Google and has a great JXL write up.

Since most people browse the internet with Chrome or a Chrome-based browser, them pulling support for a competitor's codec that enhances the competitor's services while simultaneously pushing forward the codecs that enhance Google's services is really sketchy. IMHO, Alphabet needs to be split up into smaller companies so they won't be able to collude to stifle the market because they currently get to gate keep with the largest web browser market, the largest app store market, the largest consumer phone market, the largest search engine market, etc.

They're going out of their way to develop an MIT-licensed kernel and operating system as a way to get around the "release all your sources" clause of the GPL with Android. Who knows what kind of sketch they'll be pushing to our phones without the GPL to keep them honest?

[Vaporeon]

I think JPEG-XL's lossless performance is being horribly understated by all parties. It consistently performs much better than PNG.

[quikee]

I hope that some imaging company like Canon, Nikon, Pentax, etc start adding JXL to their cameras or if Sony adds it to their sensor firmware, cameras, and phones. Now that JXL is fully spec'd with an open-source reference some bigger consumer-focused company might start picking it up and adding it to Android because Alphabet probably won't add JXL support.

Camera companies won't do anything like that - they're spineless old conservative companies that didn't do anything significant in the image format, image compression and image processing field in all the time. They didn't even adapt a common RAW format, it was Adobe who tried it with DNG and pretty much every company ignored that, because they think that with its own format they have some kind of advantage over other companies. They didn't do almost any R&D in AI image processing until Google and Apple introduced computational photography techniques into smartphones, which then obliterated their P&S and lower budget camera segments. Only after that they started seriously looking into it. Now also some companies started introducing HEIF into their cameras - because Apple and Google. They knew for 2 decades at least that JPEG won't cut it as an image format much longer as it is limited to 8-bit and for a looong time they had sensors capable of 12-bit and later 14-bit and even 16-bit and they did nothing. Now they adapt HEIF and advertise - yay it's capable of 1 BILLION colors (10-bit), JPEG only 16 million (8-bit) it's so great, we can express so much more color in the images... oh my. We had capable 16-bit image compression since introduction of JPEG2000, which was 2 decades ago! No, I don't think these companies will take the initiative and adapt JPEG XL... not until other bigger companies do and then maybe half a decade later they will.