3 ms·

If you want something that is going to be around for awhile and has a LOT of features you probably do not need then you are going to want to go probably with a

If you want something that is going to be around for awhile and has a LOT of features you probably do not need then you are going to want to go probably with a .DPX or .EXR which are the standard for the VFX industry as well as film in general. On the consumer side I guess adobe .DNG might not be bad either or for maximum compatibility but then maybe a Tiff. For video I personally like Cineform but both ProRes and DNxHD are more widely used EXR will get you full 32 bit float if needed

detuur 4y ago
How do EXR and JXL compare to each other, feature-wise?
- Melatonic 4y ago
  I have never used JXL honestly - no job I have had it was ever even considered. Given the Jpeg in the name I doubt any pro studio would consider it given the other options do everything needed. DPX is basically the older standard for film and EXR is the newer one. edit: Just looked at the specs and JpegXL is definitely marketed at least more as a web end viewing file type. It does higher color depths (up to 16 bit) which is pretty good but will not do 32 bit like EXR. Given that EXR is so widely used I would likely not consider anything else.
  - lifthrasiir 4y ago
    JPEG XL definitely supports 32-bit float samples, but cjxl is currently unable to read a 32-bit EXR [1] (compare with PFM [2] which is fully supported). [1] https://github.com/libjxl/libjxl/issues/465 https://github.com/libjxl/libjxl/issues/465 [2] http://www.pauldebevec.com/Research/HDR/PFM/ http://www.pauldebevec.com/Research/HDR/PFM/
    - Melatonic 4y ago
      Got it. Well that is good at least. Realistically I can see JPEGXL becoming a good DELIVERY format but I highly doubt any industries will be swapping to it for production use (or archiving) given there are very widely adopted formats and standards already that can do the same thing. I'm almost tempted to say that trying to make ONE format that is meant for both (delivery and production or archiving which are inherently opposites in terms of requirements) is a bad idea just from a marketing and ease of use standpoint. Sometimes its nice to have two clearly separate technologies meant specifically for their purpose.
  - JyrkiAlakuijala 4y ago
    The default implementation has more than 1000 more dynamic than the human eye or the best digital movie theaters. It would be possible to compress the highest quality photography with JPEG XL without introducing quality problems. Likely you get 1/5th of the file size from EXR -- smaller file sizes can improve some web based workflows -- for example when an advertising team is distributed, or partially in work-from-home mode. Bringing the quality of professional photography to the masses is another thing. Today, mobile phones rarely have too much capacity and many users are fighting with their memory space getting full. There, uncompressed or poorly-compressed formats are not a realistic or cost-efficient option.

detuur 4y ago

How do EXR and JXL compare to each other, feature-wise?

Melatonic 4y ago
I have never used JXL honestly - no job I have had it was ever even considered. Given the Jpeg in the name I doubt any pro studio would consider it given the other options do everything needed. DPX is basically the older standard for film and EXR is the newer one. edit: Just looked at the specs and JpegXL is definitely marketed at least more as a web end viewing file type. It does higher color depths (up to 16 bit) which is pretty good but will not do 32 bit like EXR. Given that EXR is so widely used I would likely not consider anything else.
- lifthrasiir 4y ago
  JPEG XL definitely supports 32-bit float samples, but cjxl is currently unable to read a 32-bit EXR [1] (compare with PFM [2] which is fully supported). [1] https://github.com/libjxl/libjxl/issues/465 https://github.com/libjxl/libjxl/issues/465 [2] http://www.pauldebevec.com/Research/HDR/PFM/ http://www.pauldebevec.com/Research/HDR/PFM/
  - Melatonic 4y ago
    Got it. Well that is good at least. Realistically I can see JPEGXL becoming a good DELIVERY format but I highly doubt any industries will be swapping to it for production use (or archiving) given there are very widely adopted formats and standards already that can do the same thing. I'm almost tempted to say that trying to make ONE format that is meant for both (delivery and production or archiving which are inherently opposites in terms of requirements) is a bad idea just from a marketing and ease of use standpoint. Sometimes its nice to have two clearly separate technologies meant specifically for their purpose.
- JyrkiAlakuijala 4y ago
  The default implementation has more than 1000 more dynamic than the human eye or the best digital movie theaters. It would be possible to compress the highest quality photography with JPEG XL without introducing quality problems. Likely you get 1/5th of the file size from EXR -- smaller file sizes can improve some web based workflows -- for example when an advertising team is distributed, or partially in work-from-home mode. Bringing the quality of professional photography to the masses is another thing. Today, mobile phones rarely have too much capacity and many users are fighting with their memory space getting full. There, uncompressed or poorly-compressed formats are not a realistic or cost-efficient option.