Conversation

Notices

1. Embed this notice
   Gianni Rosato (gianni@disobey.net)'s status on Monday, 05-Feb-2024 08:02:16 JST Gianni Rosato

   **Browser maker love-in snubs next-gen image format**

   "*... Interop 2024 omits JPEG XL, the most popular proposal as measured by community reactions (emojis added to proposal discussion threads). JPEG XL garnered 646 reactions, more than four times more than the second place finisher, which also wasn't included.*"

   An unfortunate conclusion from a clearly biased group that is supposed to be unbiased. Unfortunate, unclear decision making from Interop this year.

   https://www.theregister.com/2024/02/03/jpeg_xl_interop_2024/

   #jpegxl #chrome #internet #photography

   • Embed this notice
     :blobcathug: (jain@blob.cat)'s status on Monday, 05-Feb-2024 17:31:35 JST :blobcathug:

     in reply to
     @gianni recently (like in the last two weeks or so) avif is now supported with all major browsers (thx M$).
     I dont mind if jpgxl now gets implemented, but im against implementing it when other formats are still in development.
   • Embed this notice
     Gianni Rosato (gianni@disobey.net)'s status on Monday, 05-Feb-2024 17:36:53 JST Gianni Rosato

     in reply to

     • :blobcathug:

     @Jain I say with near certainty there will be an AV2F, a VIC (VVC-derived image format), and maybe even a WebP v2 in the next 5 years. None will be nearly as promising as JPEG-XL is at this very moment. AVIF is a good image format, but has crippling limitations that JXL will simply never have and that AVIF successors will not desire to fix. The "best" image format isn't just the one with the best lossy compression.

   • Embed this notice
     :blobcathug: (jain@blob.cat)'s status on Monday, 05-Feb-2024 17:53:42 JST :blobcathug:

     in reply to
     @gianni i doubt that one develops a new format with either less features and not state of the art filesizes. Thats not how the image format development process has worked in the last years.
     As i said, i have nothing against new format like jpgxl, i just think that they should focus the implementation on one format and not on multiple at the same time. It would be very very stupid to delay a stable new format over all browser just because something new and better got released.
     In general i just prefer a stable development process than the current feature creep shit which evolved in the last years in Frontend dev.
   • Embed this notice
     Gianni Rosato (gianni@disobey.net)'s status on Monday, 05-Feb-2024 18:38:10 JST Gianni Rosato

     in reply to

     • :blobcathug:

     @Jain I think you'd be very surprised to hear that AVIF is lacking features and aptitude in areas where codecs like JPEG & PNG aren't. I'll let you read more on the Codec Wiki: https://wiki.x266.mov/docs/images/AVIF

   • Embed this notice
     :blobcathug: (jain@blob.cat)'s status on Monday, 05-Feb-2024 19:19:39 JST :blobcathug:

     in reply to
     @gianni
     Progressive Loading is a feature with multiple solutions due that other image format cant do that too. Performance encoding doesnt really matters in web either. For Logos one should use a vectorized Format...
     
     Even if it has more limitations i still cant understand why people prefer feature creep and inconsistency over codecs in webbrowsers over releasing proper support and then implement the next somewhen.
   • Embed this notice
     Gianni Rosato (gianni@disobey.net)'s status on Tuesday, 06-Feb-2024 01:11:25 JST Gianni Rosato

     in reply to

     • :blobcathug:

     @Jain JXL isn't needless feature creep; that's what the video-based codecs are. You're thinking from a purely web-based standpoint here. JXL would be the only promising image codec to hopefully not need to look at another one for a very long time. I can tell you right now that professional photography, medical imaging, astrophotography, etc are simply not interested in AVIF, while JXL has the features to make everyone happy across the Web and beyond

   • Embed this notice
     :blobcathug: (jain@blob.cat)'s status on Tuesday, 06-Feb-2024 01:59:29 JST :blobcathug:

     in reply to
     @gianni
     > JXL isn't needless feature creep;...
     
     I never said JXL is feature creep. I said the implementation of random codecs regardless of whether any are already in development is feature creep, thats a big difference.
     
     > that's what the video-based codecs are.
     
     How comes that implementing video-based image codecs is feature creep? Ok look, i never had something against JXL, thats your imagination playing you.
     In fact, I am of the opinion that every halfway reasonable codec should be built into browsers, but only one after the other and not together in a random order for every browser.
     
     > You're thinking from a purely web-based standpoint here.
     
     Sure i do, the topic is literally codecs in browsers :blobcatgoogly:
     
     > JXL would be the only promising image codec to hopefully not need to look at another one for a very long time.
     
     I doupt it, the past has shown that new algorithms are built which are faster or make things smaller... All the time. But yes, currently JXL is a proper codec to store images.
     
     > I can tell you right now that professional photography, medical imaging, astrophotography, etc are simply not interested in AVIF, while JXL has the features to make everyone happy across the Web and beyond
     
     Since i like stuff to read, source please.
     
     In my experience, codecs are used which are established in the broad masses. So here are my predictions: I have the feeling that the HEIF container will spread due to its support in common OSes, and because the operating systems do not support all codecs of the HEIF container, I think that HEIC will prevail for the time being.
     But we will see
   • Embed this notice
     Gianni Rosato (gianni@disobey.net)'s status on Tuesday, 06-Feb-2024 02:30:01 JST Gianni Rosato

     in reply to

     • :blobcathug:

     @Jain Implementing too many codecs at once can get messy, which is why a new video-based codec every couple of years is an unfortunate sight to see, in my opinion. Especially considering WebP's failure (except the lossless part).

     The AVIF spec was actually submitted as a proposal for JXL, but was rejected. That should have been the sign to relinquish AVIF development, if implementing things "together in a random order" is bad for the Web since it was known it would overlap with JXL which was always supposed to be a superset of AVIF or something better.

     Regarding interest from professional use cases, I've seen JPEG XL discussed for these use cases in the JXL Discord. The JPEG XL project itself touts features like wide dynamic range support, layers, excellent lossless compression, and an incredible number of possible channels. Aside from HDR, the above are missing from AVIF. So, while adoption is still early, there is excitement about having a modern codec that can handle specialized needs beyond what JPEG and PNG currently offer. More info on JXL: https://wiki.x266.mov/docs/images/JXL

     HEIC is not supported pretty much at all on the Web due to licensing restrictions, which make it very difficult to ship HEIC images. I would say AVIF has the most momentum now, even moreso than HEIC, but JPEG-XL and other future formats could gain traction once native browser support spreads.