5 ms·

> these .jxl files are wrapped in a DNG container, so you can’t just fire off .jxl files from the iPhone 16 Pro. Any move toward JPEG XL support is good, but t

> these .jxl files are wrapped in a DNG container, so you can’t just fire off .jxl files from the iPhone 16 Pro. Any move toward JPEG XL support is good, but this is lame. Even if the Chrome team comes to its senses and restores jxl support you won't be able to view these files.

brigade 2y ago
Of course it’s .dng; .jxl doesn’t carry the metadata needed to process a RAW image because it’s not intended for that.
- USiBqidmOOkAqRb 2y ago
  Which metadata exactly? Is the actual concern that someone unaware might accidentally stumble on the unprocessed image?
  - brigade 2y ago
    To start with, without a linearization table, white and black levels, how exactly do you expect sensor data to be usefully interpreted?
    - USiBqidmOOkAqRb 2y ago
      Well, I assumed Exif and embedded color profile would have been expressive enough for this. I do agree I'm a bit out of my depth when it comes to raw photo data but Exif seemed to have properties for everything, even counting the kitchen sinks in the image.
  - appendix-rock 2y ago
    Where did that come from? It feels like you’re working backwards from some bad feelings felt about Apple.
- illiac786 2y ago
  Hmmm, is the jpeg xl data inside the dng not demosaicized?
pornel 2y ago
You wouldn't want 24MB files with GPS and face detection metadata served raw on the Web anyway.
- contravariant 2y ago
  I wouldn't want them on my phone either, but maybe that's just me.
- modeless 2y ago
  Serving images from CDNs is not the only use case for browser JXL support. Browsers can perform client side processing of images before upload. They even host fully featured image editors like https://photopea.com https://photopea.com. And sometimes you do want to see an original image from your camera in your browser, like say on the web version of Google Photos.
lonjil 2y ago
Adobe added JXL as a compression option for the DNG format last year. Previous options were JPEG, Lossless JPEG, Deflate, and nothing. Apple used Lossless JPEG. Apple engineers have decided to take advantage of the option Adobe added last year to make their DNG files smaller.

brigade 2y ago

Of course it’s .dng; .jxl doesn’t carry the metadata needed to process a RAW image because it’s not intended for that.

USiBqidmOOkAqRb 2y ago
Which metadata exactly? Is the actual concern that someone unaware might accidentally stumble on the unprocessed image?
- brigade 2y ago
  To start with, without a linearization table, white and black levels, how exactly do you expect sensor data to be usefully interpreted?
  - USiBqidmOOkAqRb 2y ago
    Well, I assumed Exif and embedded color profile would have been expressive enough for this. I do agree I'm a bit out of my depth when it comes to raw photo data but Exif seemed to have properties for everything, even counting the kitchen sinks in the image.
- appendix-rock 2y ago
  Where did that come from? It feels like you’re working backwards from some bad feelings felt about Apple.
illiac786 2y ago
Hmmm, is the jpeg xl data inside the dng not demosaicized?

pornel 2y ago

You wouldn't want 24MB files with GPS and face detection metadata served raw on the Web anyway.

contravariant 2y ago
I wouldn't want them on my phone either, but maybe that's just me.
modeless 2y ago
Serving images from CDNs is not the only use case for browser JXL support. Browsers can perform client side processing of images before upload. They even host fully featured image editors like https://photopea.com https://photopea.com. And sometimes you do want to see an original image from your camera in your browser, like say on the web version of Google Photos.

lonjil 2y ago

Adobe added JXL as a compression option for the DNG format last year. Previous options were JPEG, Lossless JPEG, Deflate, and nothing. Apple used Lossless JPEG. Apple engineers have decided to take advantage of the option Adobe added last year to make their DNG files smaller.