4 ms·

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

by detuur 4y ago

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.

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

by detuur 4y ago

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

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.