I wish more folks would acknowledge that it’s JPEG XL in a DNG. It is no more useful as a JPEG Xl than the previous DNG standard was as a JPEG.
Instead I always see tons of articles about how this will help its case on the web. This one doesn’t but several others have done so and hit the front page here.
They use it as a codec internally but you’re not embedding RAW images on websites.
Apple still use HEIF/HEIC as their image format for compressed shooting and sharing.
It seems to be useful to save space while shooting RAW.
> The biggest update for me personally this year is the new JPEG XL compression for RAW images. This means I can take far more RAW images than before without worrying about instantly filling up my phone or cloud storage. Even when increasing or decreasing the images by multiple stops of light, the data in the JPEG XL images is all there, even at 25% of the file size. Wildly impressive.
Fundamentally XL for them extends their ability to continue to rip people off on what they charge for storage, a very lucrative business for Apple. Helps that little 128gb go a bit further.
But most of us work around this with a $2.99/mth iCloud+ subscription which gets us 200GB storage on the cloud. Not a deal but a trivial enough cost to not worry about running out of storage.
As a non pro user, this is perfectly ok for storing all of my 33k photos since 2007.
It’s getting better, and this trend has seriously accelerated in the last months – my anecdotal observations.
libvips has now good support for jxl, it has (since 8.16) support for EXIF data in jxl files as well. All FOSS projects can now use this to kickstart their jxl support.
In the corporate world, well, we’re all waiting for Google (Chrome) and microsoft (Windows) basically. I think the rest is on board, Apple, Adobe, etc.
Shame that Mozilla is giving in to Google. It just looks like a delaying tactic - they don't want JPEG-XL to become popular because once JPEG-XL reaches a particular threshold of adoption, other similar encoding formats won't be able to compete with it.
I agree on the “shame” part, also I do not get why it has to be yet another encode, there already is one Rust even, jxl-oxide. Why not take this one and expand it or improve it?…
On the delaying tactic, you might be right, I want to be cautiously optimistic =)
The support is shit only because of Google, Microsoft and Mozilla who refuse to add it to their OS / browser for their own selfish reasons. The tactic seems to be to just deliberately delay implementation to ensure JPEG-XL does not become popular. Now that Apple has adopted and deployed it on their OS platforms, hopefully others will feel the pressure to adopt it as JPEG-XL's user-base increases.
I can see why Google would drag their feet because they made the competing webp standard, I am not too surprised to see Microsoft on the list either. But I don't understand why Mozilla is choosing to be difficult here?
I wish more folks would acknowledge that it’s JPEG XL in a DNG. It is no more useful as a JPEG Xl than the previous DNG standard was as a JPEG.
Instead I always see tons of articles about how this will help its case on the web. This one doesn’t but several others have done so and hit the front page here.
They use it as a codec internally but you’re not embedding RAW images on websites.
Apple still use HEIF/HEIC as their image format for compressed shooting and sharing.
It seems to be useful to save space while shooting RAW.
> The biggest update for me personally this year is the new JPEG XL compression for RAW images. This means I can take far more RAW images than before without worrying about instantly filling up my phone or cloud storage. Even when increasing or decreasing the images by multiple stops of light, the data in the JPEG XL images is all there, even at 25% of the file size. Wildly impressive.
Fundamentally XL for them extends their ability to continue to rip people off on what they charge for storage, a very lucrative business for Apple. Helps that little 128gb go a bit further.
Apple storage is indeed undersized.
But most of us work around this with a $2.99/mth iCloud+ subscription which gets us 200GB storage on the cloud. Not a deal but a trivial enough cost to not worry about running out of storage.
As a non pro user, this is perfectly ok for storing all of my 33k photos since 2007.
> rip people off
I pay 99 cents/month for a well integrated system that has never lost my data.
What alternatives provide that convenient service?
Yes, I could buy a giant HD. No I do not want to run a backup service.
It would be a lot better of an analysis if it would be compared to webp and co.
Obviously is jpeg XL better than jpeg.
It's just that the support is shit
It’s getting better, and this trend has seriously accelerated in the last months – my anecdotal observations.
libvips has now good support for jxl, it has (since 8.16) support for EXIF data in jxl files as well. All FOSS projects can now use this to kickstart their jxl support.
In the corporate world, well, we’re all waiting for Google (Chrome) and microsoft (Windows) basically. I think the rest is on board, Apple, Adobe, etc.
Chrome removed support for JPEG XL last year, see e.g. https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2023/04/free-software-group-...
Sept. 3rd:
> the team at Google has agreed to apply their subject matter expertise to build a safe, performant, compact, and compatible JPEG-XL decoder in Rust
https://github.com/mozilla/standards-positions/pull/1064
Shame that Mozilla is giving in to Google. It just looks like a delaying tactic - they don't want JPEG-XL to become popular because once JPEG-XL reaches a particular threshold of adoption, other similar encoding formats won't be able to compete with it.
I agree on the “shame” part, also I do not get why it has to be yet another encode, there already is one Rust even, jxl-oxide. Why not take this one and expand it or improve it?…
On the delaying tactic, you might be right, I want to be cautiously optimistic =)
The support is shit only because of Google, Microsoft and Mozilla who refuse to add it to their OS / browser for their own selfish reasons. The tactic seems to be to just deliberately delay implementation to ensure JPEG-XL does not become popular. Now that Apple has adopted and deployed it on their OS platforms, hopefully others will feel the pressure to adopt it as JPEG-XL's user-base increases.
I can see why Google would drag their feet because they made the competing webp standard, I am not too surprised to see Microsoft on the list either. But I don't understand why Mozilla is choosing to be difficult here?
Make sure you have an ad blocker before clicking that link.