3 ms·

I feel like JPEG XL could be a good RAW format for mirrorless cameras... something with huge flexibility but with the perk of being easier to view casually on o

by mzmzmzm 22d ago

I feel like JPEG XL could be a good RAW format for mirrorless cameras... something with huge flexibility but with the perk of being easier to view casually on other devices. And then that in turn could make it a more useful web format? Camera vendors are of course notoriously proprietary/stubborn.

adgjlsfhk1 22d ago
it's even flexible enough to represent images pre de-bayering
pkulak 22d ago
Raw isn’t an image though, it’s pre-image. And we have an open raw format already. DNF I think. With pretty decent adoption.
- weinzierl 22d ago
  True. I would love to have lossless images (and video) out of my devices still. Not as a replacement for RAW but as a middle ground between RAW and lossy JPEG. Not for quality reasons primaily but because keeping the first stages of the processing pipeline and the archival branch lossless solves some headaches.
- Gigachad 22d ago
  You are thinking of DNG which is more of a container format. It can use multiple image formats internally to record the actual image, one of them being JPEG-XL. iPhone raw images are actually a jpeg xl inside the DNG.
mikae1 22d ago
Just demosaiced JPEG XL? That's not raw. Lossless JPEG XL is in the DNG spec since three years (v1.7). So, you can convert your proprietary camera raw files to smaller ISO standard compliant JPEG XL compressed DNG raw files (mosaiced, not linearized).
- mrngld 22d ago
  PureRAW can now output linear DNG's compressed with JXL. It's amazing the first time you use it seeing 25mb RAW files go in, get made linear, and pop out 8mb or 9mb, then toss them in your RAW developer of choice and still find all the dynamic range and such you'd expect from the original RAW. I'd been doing that on my own with a script that called Adobe's DNG Converter, which has the same capability, to convert older versions of PureRAW's linear DNG to JXL-based DNG files, but that's no longer necessary. Unfortunately, at least as of perhaps a year ago, I couldn't find any other actively maintained software tooling that could reliably do what Adobe's DNG Converter was doing, and there's so much nuance to the world of RAW files that's not at all just a trivial one-shot prompt to Claude/Codex to roll your own.
- SideQuark 22d ago
  > not linearized Not linearized as in samples do not represent linear color space? I think that's untrue, as all sensor work I've done (a decent amount across many projects) are linear: double light = double photon count = 1 bit of sensor space. There are technically often some bends from physical and engineering effects (photon interaction with substrate has some variability, temperature affects things a bit). Or is there some other meaning of "not linear" you mean?

by mzmzmzm 22d ago

adgjlsfhk1 22d ago

it's even flexible enough to represent images pre de-bayering

pkulak 22d ago

Raw isn’t an image though, it’s pre-image. And we have an open raw format already. DNF I think. With pretty decent adoption.

weinzierl 22d ago
True. I would love to have lossless images (and video) out of my devices still. Not as a replacement for RAW but as a middle ground between RAW and lossy JPEG. Not for quality reasons primaily but because keeping the first stages of the processing pipeline and the archival branch lossless solves some headaches.
Gigachad 22d ago
You are thinking of DNG which is more of a container format. It can use multiple image formats internally to record the actual image, one of them being JPEG-XL. iPhone raw images are actually a jpeg xl inside the DNG.

mikae1 22d ago

Just demosaiced JPEG XL? That's not raw. Lossless JPEG XL is in the DNG spec since three years (v1.7). So, you can convert your proprietary camera raw files to smaller ISO standard compliant JPEG XL compressed DNG raw files (mosaiced, not linearized).

mrngld 22d ago
PureRAW can now output linear DNG's compressed with JXL. It's amazing the first time you use it seeing 25mb RAW files go in, get made linear, and pop out 8mb or 9mb, then toss them in your RAW developer of choice and still find all the dynamic range and such you'd expect from the original RAW. I'd been doing that on my own with a script that called Adobe's DNG Converter, which has the same capability, to convert older versions of PureRAW's linear DNG to JXL-based DNG files, but that's no longer necessary. Unfortunately, at least as of perhaps a year ago, I couldn't find any other actively maintained software tooling that could reliably do what Adobe's DNG Converter was doing, and there's so much nuance to the world of RAW files that's not at all just a trivial one-shot prompt to Claude/Codex to roll your own.
SideQuark 22d ago
> not linearized Not linearized as in samples do not represent linear color space? I think that's untrue, as all sensor work I've done (a decent amount across many projects) are linear: double light = double photon count = 1 bit of sensor space. There are technically often some bends from physical and engineering effects (photon interaction with substrate has some variability, temperature affects things a bit). Or is there some other meaning of "not linear" you mean?