this post was submitted on 02 Sep 2024
222 points (98.3% liked)
Programming
17499 readers
8 users here now
Welcome to the main community in programming.dev! Feel free to post anything relating to programming here!
Cross posting is strongly encouraged in the instance. If you feel your post or another person's post makes sense in another community cross post into it.
Hope you enjoy the instance!
Rules
Rules
- Follow the programming.dev instance rules
- Keep content related to programming in some way
- If you're posting long videos try to add in some form of tldr for those who don't want to watch videos
Wormhole
Follow the wormhole through a path of communities [email protected]
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
What's so good about it?
It's great and should be adopted everywhere, to replace every raster format from JPEG photographs to animated GIFs (or the more modern live photos format with full color depth in moving pictures) to PNGs to scanned TIFFs with zero compression/loss.
This is why I fucking love the internet.
I mean, I'll never take the time to get this knowledgable about image formats, but I am ABSOLUTELY fuckdamn thrilled that at least SOMEONE out there takes it seriously.
Good on you, pixel king
Someone made a fair point that having a format being both lossy and lossless is not necessarily a great idea. If you download a jpeg file you know it will be compressed, if you download png it will be lossless. Shifting through jxl files to check if it's lossy or not doesn't sound very fun.
All in all I'm a big supporter of jxl though, it's one of the only github repos I actively follow.
While I agree that it's somewhat bad that there is no distinction between lossless and lossy jxl in the file extension, I think it's really not a big deal compared to the present situation with jpg/png.
The reason being that if you download a png file you have no idea if its been converted from jpg, if it's a screenshot of a jpg, or if it's been subjected to lossy reencoding by a tool or a website upload process.
The only thing you can really do to try and see if the file you've downloaded has suffered encoding loss is to do an image search on it and see if there are any better quality versions out there. You'd do the exact same thing with a jxl file.
Functionally speaking, I don't see this as a significant issue.
JPEG quality settings can run a pretty wide gamut, and obviously wouldn't be immediately apparent without viewing the file and analyzing the metadata. But if we're looking at metadata, JPEG XL reports that stuff, too.
Of course, the metadata might only report the most recent conversion, but that's still a problem with all image formats, where conversion between GIF/PNG/JPG, or even edits to JPGs, would likely create lots of artifacts even if the last step happens to be lossless.
You're right that we should ensure that the metadata does accurately describe whether an image has ever been encoded in a lossy manner, though. It's especially important for things like medical scans where every pixel matters, and needs to be trusted as coming from the sensor rather than an artifact of the encoding process, to eliminate some types of error. That's why I'm hopeful that a full JXL based workflow for those images will preserve the details when necessary, and give fewer opportunities for that type of silent/unknown loss of data to occur.
Funny thing is, there was talk on the Chrome bug tracker of using just this ability transparently at the HTTP layer (like gzip/brotli compression), but they're so set on pushing their AVIF format that they backed away from it.
Basically smaller file sizes than JPEG at the same quality and it also automatically loads a lower quality version of the image before it loads a higher quality version instead of loading it pixel by pixel like an image would normally load. Google refuses to implement this tech into Chrome because they have their own avif format, which isn't bad but significantly outclassed by JPEG-XL in nearly every conceivable metric. Mozilla also isn't putting JPEG-XL into Firefox for whatever reason. If you want more detail, here's an eight minute video about it.
I'm under the impression that there's two reasons we don't have it in chromium yet:
Google already wrote the wuffs language which is specifically designed to handle formats in a fast and safe way but it looks like it only has one dedicated maintainer which means it's still stuck on a bus factor of 1.
Honestly, Google or Microsoft should just make a team to work on a jpg-xl library in wuffs while adobe should make a team to work on a jpg-xl library in rust/zig.
That way everyone will be happy, we will have two solid implementations, and they'll both be made focussing on their own features/extensions first so we'll all have a choice among libraries for different needs (e.g. browser lib focusing on fast decode, creative suite lib for optimised encode).
didn't google include jpeg-xl support already in developer versions of chromium, just to remove it later?
Chromium had it behind a flag for a while, but if there were security or serious enough performance concerns then it would make sense to remove it and wait for the jpeg-xl encoder/decoder situation to change.
It baffles me that someone large enough hasn't gone out of their way to make a decoder for chromium.
The video streaming services have done a lot of work to switch users to better formats to reduce their own costs.
If a CDN doesn't add it to chromium within the next 3 years, I'll be seriously questioning their judgement.
Adobe announced they were supporting it (in Camera Raw), that's when the Chrome team announced they were removing it (due to a "lack of industry interest")