5 ms·
iPhone 16 could let you shoot in JPEG-XL
- jiggawatts 2y agoIn which case Google and Microsoft are sure to immediately cease any work on supporting this open format, just so that they can claim Apple is unfairly preventing interoperability.
- AdamJacobMuller 2y agois JPEG-XL really an upgrade over HEIC?
- cornstalks 2y agoYes, not being HEVC is a huge plus given HEVC’s patent drama/prices And quality wise, JPEG XL is definitely better
- MBCook 2y agoSection in the article: “The iPhone 16 family could let you shoot in JPEG-XL” I’m with you. No normal person is waiting for this. Are any techies? Like maybe 2? The article says the JPEG would be a third the size they are now. OK. That’s nice. But only 12.5% of Internet users can seem ‘em. All of ‘em Apple users. https://caniuse.com/?search=jpeg-xl https://caniuse.com/?search=jpeg-xl So what’s the point? Just use HEIC. It’s supported by the exact same browsers. All Safari and nothing else. This seems like a really sketchy rumor to me.
- viraptor 2y ago> The article says the JPEG would be a third the size they are now. OK. That’s nice. That's also significant $$$ when you're serving petabytes of image traffic every month. Even if it's limited to iOS.
- somethingsidont 2y ago> But only 12.5% of Internet users can seem ‘em. All of ‘em Apple users. That's a positive for Apple. "Why can't I view the new family pics?" "Oh mom you need to get an iPhone for that"
- eviks 2y agoYou forgot that that 12.5% could change "overnight" if Google change their hostile stance, and adding it as a default in a very popular phone increases the chances of that happening, so add a few zeroes to that 2
- aidenn0 2y agoYes.
- ianburrell 2y agoIn addition to the compression, JPEG-XL has some nice features that make it better image format. It also does lossless compression. It does color spaces. One cool feature is that can losslessly convert JPEG into JPEG-XL. And back to JPEG. I can't tell if this applies to all or only converted ones, but it might make good source format and convert to JPEG on export.
- pizza 2y agoIt applies to all JPEGs.
- duskwuff 2y ago> I can't tell if this applies to all or only converted ones JPEG-XL to JPEG is only lossless for JPEG-XL images which were upgraded from JPEG. Not all JPEG-XL images can even be represented as JPEG; in particular, images with more than three channels (like images with transparency, or images with CMYK color) or with multiple frames (like an animation) certainly can't.
- eviks 2y agoWhat about those that can be represented? Is it possible to convert lpsslessly by losing some compression efficiency or still only upgraded can be downgraded?
- pornel 2y agoJPEG XL has many compression modes inside, and the lossless JPEG roundtrip works only for one of them that was specifically designed to hold old JPEG's data. You can't take an arbitrary JXL file and turn it into a JPEG without lossy recompression. The old-JPEG-preserving compression mode also isn't the best that JXL can do. It's better than the old JPEG, but not as good as JXL using all the new bells and whistles.
- jerryX 2y agoHEIC is paid, inferior, unpopular ... while JPEG XL is finally the long term replacement of ~30 year old JPEG.
- paulryanrogers 2y agoDoubtful JPG will ever be replaced. It hits a sweet spot between implementation simplicity, (adjustable) visual fidelity, and ubiquity. Even gifs persist because of they're grandfathered into auto play, despite being worse in every way than alternatives.
- modeless 2y agoYes, the progressive rendering is really cool, lossless mode is better, lossless recompression of JPEGs is a cool feature, it's faster, it supports larger images (without tiling) with more channels and higher bit depths.
- ksec 2y agoFor images at low bit per pixel, HEIC is actually quite a bit better than JPEG-XL current encoder. I wouldn't say really an upgrade technically speaking, I would put them on same level with XL have some additional interesting feature. But considering getting HEIC included in other system seems to be difficult due to patents or other reasons. JPEG-XL seems to be the best middle ground in everything. I am still hoping there could be additional work on JXL in terms of low bit per pixel improvement and encoding / decoding resource usage. Especially in the lossless front.
- Pikamander2 2y agoCompared to the stark differences between BMP/JPG/PNG/GIF, there's a ton of overlap between WEBP/HEIC/AVIF/JPEGXL. Naturally, some types of images tend to compress better with some formats than others, and then you may have to take into account things like the desired quality level, encoding time, etc. https://cloudinary.com/blog/time_for_next_gen_codecs_to_dethrone_jpeg https://cloudinary.com/blog/time_for_next_gen_codecs_to_deth... Realistically, any of those four new formats would be fine for 99% of the images that exist, but it would still be nice for every browser to support them all so that web developers can choose their favorite format. Although, on the flip side, the drawback of having so many formats floating around is that software developers have to spend more time supporting it all. Even trillion dollar companies like Microsoft are seemingly in no rush to make sure that formats like WebP are as well integrated into their software as JPG/PNG were.
- sunflowerfly 2y agoHEIC was designed for motion pictures where smoothing at the cost of detail is acceptable. From an image detail standpoint, yes.
- M-Valentino 2y agoI want a phone that lets you shoot PNG
- The_Colonel 2y agoWhy? PNG is really a bad format for photos (simply was not designed for this use case) JPEG-XL has a lossless mode if that's what you're after ...
- M-Valentino 2y agoI like PNG's lossless compression. I feel like PNG was a really bad format back when hard drives were 100GB, but now storage is so cheap. I didn't know JPEP-XL had a lossless mode. Other than that format, I don't know of any other formats that offer lossless compression other than bitmap and TIF. You can't really use TIFs in many contexts and bitmaps have no compression at all.
- bobbylarrybobby 2y agoI can't imagine a PNG actually having a good compression ratio for photographic data. Better at that point to just shoot RAW.
- nanidin 2y agoWhy not?
- tourmalinetaco 2y agoBecause of how PNG compresses images. The high detail will lead to large images, and at that point it’d be easier to save the RAW output of the camera, offload the images, and do any compression later.
- bobbylarrybobby 2y agoBecause png compression is optimized for images with few distinct colors and long runs of the same color. Photographs are not like that.
- guidedlight 2y agoThe JPEG-XL test page (linked in the article), works well. https://jpegxl.info/test-page/ https://jpegxl.info/test-page/ At the bottom of the page it has animation demonstration, that doesn’t appear to work on my iPhone 13 Pro. Does JPEG-XL really include animation support?
- voisin 2y agoDoesn’t animate on my iPhone 15 pro either.
- taspeotis 2y agoWorks on my iPhone 15 Pro iOS 17.6.1
- slimsag 2y agoAll blank in Firefox :(
- foepys 2y agoThat's because Mozilla has no interest supporting it. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34588883 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34588883
- Pikamander2 2y agoConsider upvoting the feature request here if you're interested in it: https://connect.mozilla.org/t5/ideas/idb-p/ideas/status-key/trending-idea https://connect.mozilla.org/t5/ideas/idb-p/ideas/status-key/... The Firefox and Chrome teams will likely get around to adding it eventually, but it's a real shame that they've both chosen to defer it. Normally Safari is the one lagging behind on web standards but somehow it's ended up being the one to lead the charge here.
- illiac786 2y agoCorrect link: https://connect.mozilla.org/t5/ideas/support-jpeg-xl/idi-p/18433 https://connect.mozilla.org/t5/ideas/support-jpeg-xl/idi-p/1...
- jl6 2y agoSeems to be just a rumor, but one that I hope is true. I also hope they use it as an opportunity to finally fix the longstanding ugly wart of having Live Photos be a separate .MOV file sitting alongside the HEIC file. JPEG XL is a container format so it should be possible to include the MOV as a separate box alongside the jxlc data and exif metadata. Of course, HEIF had the same capability and they still didn’t use it.
- pretext-1 2y agoTechnically they could already do this as JPEG allows adding arbitrary data to the file after the image data. ZIP files allow arbitrary data BEFORE the image data, therefore a file can be a valid JPEG and ZIP at the same time. So all you need to do is to put the MOV into a ZIP and append that to the image file, done. Live Photos in a single file! Btw., you can abuse the „unlimited“ „free“ photos storage that comes with Amazon Prime that way.
- jl6 2y agoI might make a website about this sort of stuff!
- nyanpasu64 2y agoI want a return to an enforced norm of different extensions for lossy and lossless files. With the adoption of WebP, I've repeatedly encountered shady CDNs substituting in lossy .webp files in place of lossless .png files, in a way you can't tell by the filetype alone when saving a file (whereas you could tell when saving a .png URL but get a .jpg file instead). I fear the same will happen with .jxl files.
- ksec 2y agoI voiced the exact same thing for many years and unfortunately the author of jxl doesn't agree with that. I wish the same as well we could just tell by file type.
- _answ 2y agoThe lossy vs lossless distinction loses its meaning in the absence of provenance. You can compress a bitmap into a .jpg q=1, and then save it as a .png. The .png is technically lossless, but that clearly doesn't tell much about the image quality. Conversely, many cameras shoot JPEG as the source format. The .jpg is, in effect, the master copy from which the loss is measured (obviously there are losses from the sensor data, but still).
- legohead 2y agoI thought most cameras shot RAW and then chose a format to save to (some letting you save RAW itself, at least with Android).
- cma 2y agoAnd a CDN could want to do it, because you can degrade a png in lossy ways from the original that make it compress much better, even though the compression is lossless.
- londons_explore 2y agoIn the world of the web, it is the mime type, not the extension, which tells you the format. It's kinda just lousy OS's which aren't correctly storing the mime type for each file.
- butz 2y agoGood luck viewing those on Chrome.
- pornel 2y ago24 megapixel almost-lossless photos dumped straight from the camera are too heavy to be used directly on the Web. They also have lots of metadata including GPS location, that people usually don't want to share. In practice you'd want to resize it (HD is 2mpx, and 4K resolution is 8mpx), and recompress to quality suitable for viewing not editing (makes huge difference in file size). The necessary recompression step makes the input format mostly irrelevant. The upside is that JPEG XL is free to use, so it's possible to legally write tooling using it without touching the mess of H.265 patents.
- pretext-1 2y agoThey might reconsider. https://www.phoronix.com/news/Chrome-JPEG-XL-Seconds https://www.phoronix.com/news/Chrome-JPEG-XL-Seconds
- 486sx33 2y agoInterestingly, when visiting the JPEG-XL test page referenced in the article, everything renders but the animation at the bottom for JPEG-XL doesn’t move. The others do. iPhone 15 pro on safari