The fact Chromium can bump off JPEG XL because of market share is just, horrible. We really need more than Firefox running on their own rendering engines.
I think Google perfectly highlighted why they have a dangerously powerful control over how the internet will be shaped when they removed the JPEG XL support. So many huge companies have been working hard to make this format more widely supported and yet they can simply just close the discussion and win. During Interop 2024, a project for getting various web features well supported across browsers, JPEG XL won the popular vote by a huge margin. And yet, when the presented their picks for what to work on it was strangely missing. They claimed a lack of consensus. No wonder which party wasn't willing to budge…
rarely does the better format win... the more popular format wins (popular with big companies not people people don't matter we use what we get what's happening under the hood is irrelevant to the enduser)... else we would've never gotten CDs but instead would use LaserDisc or ZipDisc... and we would've never gotten Bluerays but HDDVD would've won... we wouldn't have spend 50 years watching stuff on our CRTs etc etc etc etc
I've seen this also in IETF standards. If it weren't for a certain group we would've gotten a significantly worse QUIC implementation because Google just tried to steamroll their version through the IETF. And don't get me started on the insanity of the in browser DRM shit.
@@UberFoX yeah go tell Brave to make their own engine... i'm sure they'll get on it right away because it's so worth it... and even if they did the 3 people using brave won't change anything
Whats also important to note is that JPEG XL has specific encoding features for 'artifical' images, stuff like screenshots and what not. So where a typical lossy codec will mess up your screenshots JPEG XL will keep them clean and almost completely lossless. It even works for mixed data, so if you have a screenshot that contains natural images it will compress them using lossy image compression while keeping the rest lossless. Thats something that no other codec has at the moment, and I think this gives it the definite advantage over any other format.
@2kliksphilip I've stumbled upon while reading the XL whitepaper (I was implementing JPEG XS at the time) but there is also a good write up on the jpeg-xl reference implementation on github. XL has several codec modes, the lossy one is called 'VarDCT' and the lossless one is called 'Modular'. The coder can switch between these two at any point in the image using a feature called 'Sub-imaging'. There are also some other less documented features like post-process artificial noise (which can be used to add in image noise lost during the compression), image patching for the efficient compression of repeating tiles like text and splines where the image coder can detect curves in the image and encode them separately which can help mitigate blocky artifacts around curves. I'm not sure how well most implementations support all these features. I know that the reference implementations does support them. There is a very extensive benchmark which unfortunately I cant send the link to here on RUclips which compares different image codecs in lossless scenarios which was posted on the r/AV1 subreddit. In this benchmark its shown just how bad AVIF compares to XL at this job, with files being 63% larger on average and a whopping 140% larger in the worse case (which was comic panels). Its also shown that BMF and EMMA both beat XL by about 5% and 10% on average respectively, but considering that both are very slow closed source compressors developed in Russia that's unlikely to be adopted.
@@2kliksphilip I've stumbled upon while reading the XL whitepaper (I was implementing JPEG XS at the time) but there is also a good write up on the github of the ImageMagick JPEG XL reference implementation. There are essentially two different codec modes - VarDCT and Modular. The VarDCT mode is the 'natural image' part of the codec while the Modular mode is designed for 'artificial' images and was inspired by parts of WebP and FLIF+FUIF. The coder can switch between them at any point in the image thanks to a feature called sub-imaging. I believe that most implementations support this already. Typically some content detection algorithm is used to determine what mode should be used for a given section. In addition to the modes there are also three 'filters' that can be applied after the image has been decoded. There is artificial noise which can help in the situation you described in the video where the codec removes film grain. During compression the coder can detect that noise is present in the image and make a mathematical model of the noise. During decompression this noise can then be reapplied (or also left out if so desired). Next there is patching which is mainly there to help with text. I don't think many encoders support it but the idea is that if you have repeated patterns you can encode each pattern once and just stamp them where they occur again. Last there is an option to draw (filled) splines which can help with diagrams and rounded ui elements which can leave famously bad compression artifacts. I don't think any encoder implements this yet but they may in the future.
@@2kliksphilip I've stumbled upon while reading the XL whitepaper (I was implementing JPEG XS at the time) but there is also a good write up on the github of the ImageMagick JPEG XL reference implementation. There are essentially two different codec modes - VarDCT and Modular. The VarDCT mode is the 'natural image' part of the codec while the Modular mode is designed for 'artificial' images and was inspired by parts of WebP and FLIF+FUIF. The coder can switch between them at any point in the image thanks to a feature called sub-imaging. I believe that most implementations support this already. Typically some content detection algorithm is used to determine what mode should be used for a given section. In addition to the modes there are also three 'filters' that can be applied after the image has been decoded. There is artificial noise which can help in the situation you described in the video where the codec removes film grain. During compression the coder can detect that noise is present in the image and make a mathematical model of the noise. During decompression this noise can then be reapplied (or also left out if so desired). Next there is patching which is mainly there to help with text. I don't think many encoders support it but the idea is that if you have repeated patterns you can encode each pattern once and just stamp them where they occur again. Last there is an option to draw (filled) splines which can help with diagrams and rounded ui elements which can leave famously bad compression artifacts. I don't think any encoder implements this yet but they may in the future. (youtube deleted this like 5 times now, maybe this sticks)
@@2kliksphilip I've stumbled upon while reading the XL whitepaper (I was implementing JPEG XS at the time) but there is also a good write up on the github of the ImageMagick JPEG XL reference implementation. There are essentially two different codec modes - VarDCT and Modular. The VarDCT mode is the 'natural image' part of the codec while the Modular mode is designed for 'artificial' images and was inspired by parts of WebP and FLIF+FUIF. The coder can switch between them at any point in the image thanks to a feature called sub-imaging. I believe that most implementations support this already. Typically some content detection algorithm is used to determine what mode should be used for a given section. (youtube deleted this like 5 times now, maybe this sticks. made it shorter this time)
So a format designed by Google, heavily implemented by Google, promoted by Google, and without competition in Google's own suite because they chose not to support its opposition is getting ahead? Hello? Monopoly Commission?
Their reputation is already deteriorating, so I still used Floorp either way. They're using an old tactic called customer acquisition or growth over loses, until other companies or something are bankrupt, after there's no competition, they then they'll start ROI.
Well I'd rather have top down loading images compared to what most websites do which show a spinning circle, and if it's twitter, just doesn't load anything
I’d rather have it load topdown and i can see when it’s finished. Instead of wondering, is this the right resolution or is the image not fully loaded yet?
Yep, readed 2 blogs about new image codecs, both show JpegXl to be same size or smaller than AVIF. And AVIF is horrible in lossless mode, almost as large as plain PNG, since video codecs are not made with lossless mode in mind. (WebP performs quite well, since it uses a differnt algorithm for lossless mode, instead of VP8-based)
Here's a fun fact! The progressive loading feature of JPEG XL is actually also seen in the older PNG standard. PNG is able to use a technique called two-dimensional interlacing, where each tile in the grid is filled in sync, instead of just drawing the entire image from top to bottom. If the browser supports it, it will be able to (poorly) interpolate the rest of the image until it fully loads. Pretty cool!
@@brianhawthorne7603 me too, so much memories with transparency and animation, while non-png's are just fighting over other features and the occasional transparency support. Will probably like Jpeg XL too cause I read it supports animation and transparency. I heard even in the Photography industry they either use .tif or a specific version of jpeg(not jpeg xl last time i remember)
This whole feature honestly sounds like a nightmare to me, never knowing when I'll really be looking at the full quality version. I much prefer the loading from top to bottom.
@@MangaGamified We use RAW files from camera and depending on the customer we will ship them the raw image sensor data and let them do the work, but otherwise we usually ship a TIFF image or a PSD file (Photoshop native). The formatting is also different depending on is the primary use gonna be digital color space or print medium.
format wars 1980s: we are going to make the coolest tech possible so people want to buy it modern format wars: "we have no plans to implement this feature"
There are other modern image formatts developed for specific applications such as medical imaging, there's OpenEXR. JPEG2000 seems to have kicked a bucket without anybody noticing - at least I have not ran over an image in the wild yet. JPEG has no alpha channel. It would be nice if we could settle on an image format that satisfies the whole industry for a few decades, more than a mere JPG replacement and one that unifies image (and ideally video) formats.
@@thewhitefalcon8539 For the good and bad - the computer industry is developing at a speed that governments and regulatory authorities are having a hard time to cope with.
To make things worse, placeholders like thumbhash don't really replace progressive decoding. They only offer a very low-resolution "preview" (if you can even call it that). Progressive decoding is literally what it says, it offers several levels of detail that are progressively loaded in as the image is downloaded. If the image is hiDPI, the second-to-last level might already look pretty good on a low-DPI display, in fact. However, it can also be argued that if the image format is more efficient thanks to not bothering about progressive decoding, less time will be spent downloading and decoding the image. This means progressive decoding becomes less relevant as connctions become faster. JPEG was an oddity here because its progressive mode made for smaller images than non-progressive mode (this was the opposite of PNG). The only downside was decoding time which was slower, but it was a non-issue on anything but the lowest-end mobile devices (or for tiny images like avatars).
@@lukekline9513 I mean this video basically shows you an example, loading top down vs loading instantly a lower quality image that goes to 100% after a moment
Here’s an idea: hopefully the ongoing antitrust suit against Google will scare them into supporting jpeg xl again out of fear of the lack of support looking anti competitive
Get this though: jpeg xl was also developed (in part) by google. Problem is it's some European google people who do other data compression things, and there appears to be some weird politics/rivalry thing going on with the US (i think) google people who work on the browser who seem to favor their friends working on video codecs. It's really weird and hard to understand.
@@admiralkaede perhaps, but the lawsuit is being done by a federal agency, not the dinosaurs in congress, and they tend to be more technocratic and consult as much expert opinions as they can to make the best case possible against companies
I've been following JPEG XL for a long long time, and i'm hoping that Apple's support for the format pressures Google into adding it for Chrome in the future
heres the thing: this wasnt an apple effort, it was added to the webkit web engine (that safari is based on) by volunteers and apple just took it as it came
Apple is more likely to push for HEIC which is the same thing as AVIF but with a mpeg/h26* frame instead of a AV1 frame. HEIF is that "standard to unite them all", being a container format it provides support for HEIC, PNG, AVIF, JPEG, and JPEG XL image formats.
Multiple tests have shown that JPEG XL outperforms AVIF when targeting high-quality photographs. I worry that in order to justify AVIF's existence, everything will be hypercompressed and just degrade the general image quality of the web. The bandwidth saving is kind of moot when you need multiple megabytes of JavaScript just to open the front page of a modern website anyway.
Haha, isn't it funny how many modern programs are based on Chromium these days and use 500MB RAM just to render a freakin' text chat window... And this same company is telling us they care about loading times? MSN Messenger used to load instantly on a Pentium 3 on a slow mechanical hard drive yet Discord takes like 20 seconds to load on a Ryzen 7 with 32GB RAM and an NVME SSD... If they care so much about loading times maybe they should consider turning off their VIDEO ADS...
@@versy187 Pfft, normies won't ever do anything smart. They'll just keep letting their lives get worse and assume there's nothing they can do about it. It's what defines them.
@@Pyroteq They couldn't care less about your experience. As long as they can scrape off terabytes from their own datacenters, they'll do whatever it takes.
@@nanopone AVIF supports both HDR and wide colour gamuts, and the resolution limits are high enough to be irrelevant. The colour depth limitations don't really matter either, as more than 12-bit is past the point of diminishing returns. And that (diminishing returns) is also why it's not future-proofing to support more. That said, JPEG XL has some other huge advantages that make it a better option. Being able to get a 20% size saving on existing lossy JPEG files with lossless compression is a big deal, for example.
interestingly, that was already a feature of jpeg2000, which was made in (surprise) 2000 jpeg 2000 was basically jpegXL but a small bit worse and 24 years ago, but it can't be opened in windows by default to this day :(
@@Shadowreaper8435mostly because jpeg2000 is a huge mess of a standard - it's somewhat literally the middle frame of xkcd 927. they sat *everyone* who could ever have a use case for storing images together in a room and included everyone's suggestions. so we allow both lossless and lossy compression. oh, and compression that's only lossless in some places because that's cool for medical uses. giant images, moving images, whatever you could think of. arithmetic encoding, because IBM is gonna throw a hissy fit otherwise. so nobody wants to implement all that, and jpeg2000 never took off.
Though HTML already does support lowsrc attribute where one could put superduper optimized tiny file for the image which would be loaded first and then later automatically replaced with the AVIF file once it loads.
Dude, if your parents can even back up files to a hard drive, consider yourself lucky. Where I live, it's a constant stream of old people proudly proclaiming that they don't know how to use a computer--as if that's a flex. Old people who don't learn how to use a computer in a basic way aren't stupid, they're lazy.
Take it further. I deal with endless boomers who have had smart phones since their introduction and they brag about not knowing how to use it. Imagine buying a $1000 device and never learning about it. Boom booms are a special breed of idiocy.
@@postplays Same people that complain that kids these days don't know how to use paper maps, rotary phones, tv guides, card catalogs, or write a check. All things that are completely or almost completely unnecessary tasks in typical life.
@@BlueBlossomsBlues My grandmother spent 75 years not wanting to learn new techs. Since a child, she didn't like new stuff, she was a pen, paper and books person, only uses two buttons on the TV and only reluctantly got a VHS for me to watch cartoons. She's a writer and she still writes everything by hand and then gives to someone (usually me) to type it out, in spite of having bought every XTPO typewriter and a laptop, and just never "got used to using them, too complicated". THEN. Her brick phone died and I gave her my old smartphone as a quick replacement. I just told her how to make calls and send messages, because that's what she used the brickphone for. 8h later and she's sending me youtube links on whatsapp of movies from her childhood, figured out all by herself (what youtube was, how to share a link, how to create a whatsapp account, etc), three days later and she's doing collages and GIFs from photos she took of her flower garden. So I find that the whole "old dogs can't learn new tricks" is bullshit, people usually don't WANT to learn for whatever reason - if they do, they'll learn anything, because new technologies are generally simple and intuitive these days. It's all about wanting to learn, not capacity or adaptation.
i remember looking into what was blocking firefox support and it came down to chrome lacking support. "you can't just advocate for adding a new codec" but the moment chrome adds a new codec they'll race to have parity. google and apple are both shitty companies but at least they keep each other in check.
They have support in nightly behind a flag. They have the implementation. They're just refusing to use it. Mozilla is apparently completely baffled at the idea that maybe not every web standard needs to start with Chrome. The fact that Safari did it before Mozilla is just plain embarrassing. People will tell you Firefox is important to prevent a Chromium monopoly, but it's a moot point if Mozilla is entirely content with following Google's whims. It's extremely frustrating. Defenders of the open web my ass. They're just sell-outs. Looking forward to Servo and Ladybird.
The worst part about companies trying to push a new format down to users is that there's literally *NO SUPPORT* for it anywhere else! To this day most file viewers and instant messaging apps can't open .webp and yet whenever you want to download an image you are given something you can't actually send to another person without converting it into a .png first!
The same goes for .webm. I know most websites are using it but I'm yet to see any native video app that isn't streaming simply open a .webm file without any fuss.
ImageGlass supports webp and it's not the only one. The later versions of Photofiltre do too. Edge, Safari, Firefox, XnView, Krita, Aseprite, GIMP, Paint dot Net, IrfanView, LibreOffice, Windows Photos, Clip Studio Paint and CorelDraw all support webp. Hex, Sumatra PDF, Godot and Ren'py all support it too. You're literally incorrect.
Don't forget JPEG-XL also has an excellent lossless mode! It compresses even smaller than WebP Lossless in my experience, which already beats PNG by a healthy 30-50%.
Anything you suggest for encoding JXL Lossless? I tried it a while back with Affinity Photo and... it was NOT lossless. I was using it to compress a bunch of WoW screenshots that were TGA format and there was visible, significant loss of quality on basically every very fine detail in the image. The area had a floor pattern of lines all over the screen and like 80% of them straight up disappeared in the JXL Lossless version.
Really? I've seriously struggled to get either AVIF or JXL to beat WebP in lossless. WebP's custom lossless compression thing seems to work incredibly well.
My hatred for WebP (widely supported [by browsers], but lossy by default) and APNG (refused to have a different file extension, animation not widely supported) makes me cheer on for JXL, even without the progressive loading. It reminds me of interlaced PNG, but more sophisticated and a logical next step after JPEG.
Future computers trying to open a JPEG after searching image of hotdogs: "Do I look like I know what a JPEG is? I just want a picture of a got dang hot dog!"
@@soundspark GIFs are useful for uploading or creating a gallery of animations, but in a video game we use sprite sheets of PNGs so each frame has accurate positional data as well as the option to play them forwards, backwards, or only a certain number of frames within a given time span.
Neat. I've been using AVIF due to that study but I'll take another look at JPEG XL because the slow image loading of huge AVIF files is what has been bothering me.
Always make sure to get the latest version. There have been big improvements to JXL speed, not very long ago. As a nice bonus, you can now make Windows create thumbnails for JXL files, just need to look up and download a dll.
I tried using avif, but many of the tools create artifacts or are slow. Space is too cheap to waste that much power, Phillip did all that to save 6 dollars in space.
this reminds me of my recent struggle with APNG. I personally am tired of using GIF, its so old and not really appropriate anymore. Yet we barely see APNGs supported, they feature higher framerate, bitrate, transparency. Its just a way more modern format, yet you see apps like Discord removing support for it and here we are, still stuck with plain old GIF once more....
It would be even better if there was some generally agreed standard to indicate mp4s or webms should be loopable, that would cover most usecases for GIF.
@@averesenso you can actually make loop-able webp's without any hacks as its actually a hidden feature for some reason, mp4's seem illogical as its a video format rather than an image format and its size is considerably different to a gif/apng/webp eitherway mp4's can be looped in html which is where most people will even look at one that needs to be looped and most video players have a loop feature
@@averesenso oh god i *strongly* disagree with you here video codecs are lossy and will mangle information where they think you wont notice (commonly seen with dark scenes and falling snow especially on older codecs), gif and apng dont do this (though gif can require color compression when converting from other formats, idk i mostly make pixel art so i haven't even hit 256 colors) so yea, if im manually animating something, checking to make sure every frame is how i want it to be, i do not want compression to mess that up at literally the last step and lossy video codecs just do not guarantee that
What I appreciate most about this video presentation is that you pressed your manliness into that package and then placed it dead center frame and right up front in our faces. Nice.
god thank you thank you thank you thank you for making this video. almost all images on my pc are jpeg x. its lossless compression is insane and its lossy compression on the same level, if not *better* for the same image quality with avif. getting this word out on a large audience is sorely needed
It can be added and iirc insider version of Windows has partial support as well. (Not sure if they show on thumbnail in the insider version however since I don't use Windows). And regarding Instagram: No idea if they actually do any magic on their site but engineers of the company running Instagram, Meta, have been spoken out in favour of JPEG XL and the immense savings it brings on the JPEG XL issue on zhe Chromium issue tracker.
I rather have a non profit group fo experts than having ONE company behind a standard picture format. Thats how we got Adobes and Microsofts defacto standard monopolies.
I still hate WEBP. It doesnt work on anything. At all. Not even on windows, sometimes they break theyr transparency on thumbnails just to make me giggle. Or piss me off, it depends on how im feeling that day, idk. Still, screw WEBP, and thanks for teaching me there are actual differences between a jpeg and a jpeg. Sometimes I thought it was blurrier seemingly at random, but now I know they can be different.
I don't see the problem with WEBPs. Poor support for a codec doesn't make the codec bad. If you can't view WEBPs then change your viewer to something more modern. XNView is the only serious image viewer and it views them. Photoshop opens them. What more do you need?
Progressive image loading was a fantastic feature back in the 1990s when dial-up modems took minutes to display a single image. But today I hardly ever see it used on the web.
You don't see it because 'modern' image formats don't support it, and websites and image proxies code to the lowest common denominator. webp and avif basically can't support it because of how they work. PNG does support it if the image is encoded with Adam7, but that does usually increase filesize slightly so most people don't bother. Websites have been doing workarounds for this for ages - instead of using a proper progressive image format, they load low-resolution thumbnails first. If you're ever on a slow internet connection you can see this kind of thing all over the place.
@@animowany111 I think there is no way to tell the browser to extract this low-quality preview from an image and use it as a thumbnail. it would require more complicated communication with the server, caching will be more difficult, etc. and there always would be an old browser, which doesn't support all that stuff properly, and would be slow, so web devs won't use this feature anyway to stay compatible so it's easier to use pre-made thumbnails in separate files
Firefox doesn't care, they had a working JPEGXL support since Firefox 90 and they still today decided to disable it by default. Everyone want to support AVIF and WEBP
I agree. I feel like I never really just stumble upon random videos about topic I barely know. But that was kind of what made RUclips cool in the first place. I'm in such a content rut lately.
Great video, good information. Critique on the editing: At the end, more time would be needed to see the final XKCD, also it was obstructed by your recommended next video. Earlier, some of the quickly intercut bits of information were just too fast to be digested. - Hope this helps :)
Finally some attention for JPEG-XL! You mentioned some things I didn't even know, like the progressive decode. That feature would be an absolute game changer!
@@ArunG273 feel free to suggest videos or websites where the algorithm is explained. I will stop when I don't find it fun anymore so don't you worry. 😉
JPEG generally uses good ol' fashioned Huffman coding with its whole prefix-tree system. JPEG-XL uses something developed more recently called Asymmetric Numeral Systems. The best way I can think of to describe it is like standard positional notation for numbers, but completely _drunk._ The amount that each digit scales depends on the existing value and the digit itself. One benefit over Huffman coding is that Huffman coding always requires at least 1 bit per element, while "ANS" only needs to output bits when the represented number gets too big to store, meaning that for particularly common elements, you can sometimes process multiple of them before needing to output a single bit. The math is actually _really cool_ if you enjoy math. My suggestion for a reference would be Understanding the ANS Compressor by Kedar Tatwawadi. Aside from that Pixel Predictors are a whole separate beast in JPEG-XL. Other formats might have a few predictors using the pixel above or beside the pixel currently being worked on to provide a base for its colour, with the value actually stored being the offset from this base. JPEG-XL has a whole bunch of options for pixel predictors, and the image can define where each predictor should apply and how. This basically results in JPEG-XL pixel predictors being an entire _bytecode_ that can be programmed to generate images from _0 pixel data!_ The result of this is sometimes called "JXL Art" and the results can be very cool and _absurdly tiny_ since the image is effectively procedurally generated rather than actually stored. It's especially good at making certain fractals. If you're wondering about the Discrete Cosine Transform used in JPEG, don't worry, it hasn't gone anywhere, though the 8x8 DCT in JPEG has been joined by several other sizes of DCT, intended to be selected dynamically depending on where the detail in the image lies and how it's shaped (JXL even has non-square DCT options).
6:22 - Wow, feels weird to say this but kudos to Apple for giving support to both. That's something that is highly unusual for them lol. I guess Apple hasn't gotten into image formats.... yet....
Well, as long as they don't make old JPEG pictures completely inaccessible and obsolete like they almost did with Flash, I think it will be OK. The immense amount of trauma from losing access to all my favourite childhood games was only negated thanks in no small part to the legends that created all the Flash emulators that now exist.
@@akostadinov Closed source does not make software inherently bad. YT is closed source yet you're still here. Besides, Flash was developed at a time when open source was not mainstream. If Flash had been developed further to meet modern standards, perhaps the web dev (largely open source) ecosystem wouldn't be the mess it is in today.
@@LZE. first of all it is no coincidence that open source software is mainstream now. It is not just because some company developed great OSS project. But the development model proved to be more successful. Also it is better for us - the users. RUclips is not popular because it is such a great piece of software. But because it allows free hosting of videos. There are occasionally nice closed source applications and frameworks. But always the commercial owner will screw it up some day. End users have no alternatives. That's why everybody prefers open songs to begin with, to avoid vendor lock in and so on. You can also check the free software foundation explanation what is free software and why you want to use free software.
@@ZaCloud-Animations___she-her the main point was that closed source was not inherently bad but it rather is. There are countless of examples of abandon-ware, bait-and-switch and other problems. Yes, a piece of software can be nice right now. But op exactly pointed out one example where things were really bad. Bad quality, security issues, resource hog, etc. Moreover it was not usable or not same usability on linux and other platforms. And then nobody can do anything except the vendor which rightfully may not care. But then why should I rely on a single vendor if I have better alternatives? How is this crapping on an argument? While on it, you can love anything. People love all kinds of horrible things. Especially if you are just a user and prefer not to see the issues. If you look at controversial topics, you can see all small creators complaining that they get different treatment than big media. They get demonetized, videos removed, appeal mostly non-existent. What is to love here, censoring? But if you care about here and now, and you are ready to accept all the risks, then that's fine. Just be informed and be prepared. And btw it was not google first trying to get rid of it. It was everybody. Mozilla and Apple too. I think Firefox was first, then Chrome included by default and when they got market share, they killed it for good. But it was evil IMO, just for another reason.
The commit to remove JXL support from chromium was authored by Google employee James Zern, one of the authors of WebP. Seems to me like he wanted to take out the competitor and abused his position as a Google employee to do so.
and/or google wants to save a few bucks on server space over the next 5 years before throwing it away and adopting whatever new format in a few more years
I would also want an image renderer that can pause or terminate a download once a certain decipherability threshold is reached in low-bandwidth environments. Phone screens are so small that you usually shouldn't NEED to download an entire image unless you want to zoom into full res, and if you're quickly flipping through images in a gallery, they should load as FAST as possible, which means downloading many images at once (for thumbnails and low res facsimiles)
The fact that Windows has such crappy support for non-standard image formats annoys me a lot. How hard is it to have a proper preview for svg vectors? Why do I have to use a random extension from the Microsoft store?
Honestly the main problem I have with new standards many applications are not expecting new extensions. Like webp was created in 2010 it took 13 years(May 3, 2023) before the basic windows photo viewer supported it. So when the majority of images you download from your browser are some new type it can be a pain to edit/view do anything with that image.
@@thecynth3820No that was jpegyakuza. Jpegmafia just died of cerebral cereal disease. (CCD, makes your grey matter become harder and brittle, and look like corn flakes... If you think im joking, google it.)
I hate webp... I'd rather use an extention that saves as .png rather that the shitty .webp. For me, jpegxl is the way whenever and if ever platforms support it more
I'm a blogger who loves adding anime GIF images to my posts, but they are soo damn huge. I switched to using soundless MP4s and using code to make them work in Wordpress embedded, and they work GREAT. But frustratingly, while "soundless MP4" should replace GIF entirely, I don't believe Google will be archiving my "not GIFs" and thus I'm taking a hit by posting them. Can you consider a post on why we need a "final" format for animated GIF style animations?
The problem is this: Webp exists since 2010 & has a stable spec since 2018 & as such is supported in about every image program & library while JPEG-XL existed only as early as 2018 & has had its first stable spec literally just 2 months ago in June this year. I agree that JPEG-XL sounds a lot better then AVIF & WebP but it's simply too early to adopt it yet.
@@lynrayy not on linux, .heif .apng. .jxl .webp all open perfectly because the developers develop what they want and often the development is centered on one project which then can be used by many others
I thought it was odd that the video didn't even mention WEBP. Hard to understand what's happening in the world of modern codecs when you miss out the current generation.
I've been following JPEG XL ever since it was just some guy's little image codec experiment called FLIF, that's where the progressive decode feature comes from. AVIF just doesn't make sense for images, ramping up the entire hardware decoding pipeline is fine for videos since they have lots of frames, but it's a ton of overhead for a single image, and then multiple of them perhaps on the same page.
I think it's absolutely hilarious the only way you can see the imperfections is if you zoom in on the picture. Which honestly doesn't really f****** matter.
@@gamecubeplayer yeah but you're only going to be able to see those imperfections if you zoom in. If you're not zoomed in you're never going to see those imperfections. So no it doesn't. when was the last time you zoomed in on a picture to try to read some text.
I think what JPEG XL has is a branding problem. Not only is it associated with pixelated images (due largely to how it's been used) and therefore lower quality, but it doesn't have the promotional power of a giant like Google to tout its benefits. Not that Google would do that; they've long since stopped making decisions that are good for the web at large (if they ever did) and are focused on what increases their own reach or locks users into their own apps and services.
JPEG-XL is backed by the Joint Photographics Experts Group (you may recognize their acronym; making image formats is kind of their thing), the ISO (that's the _International Standards Organization!_ Kind of a big deal for... just about _everything),_ and... _Google._ That's not a joke, JPEG-XL was in part developed and pushed by one of Google's teams in Europe. This team is notably not connected to Chrome's team who doesn't seem to be interested in working with them. Aside from the people developping the format, it's also being promoted by some small names you may or may not have heard of, like Intel, Adobe, and Facebook.
One thing that AVIF is pretty neat for: Video thumbnails, or preview images when hovering over the seek bar. If the video is AV1, getting an AVIF thumbnail is pretty easy and fast. That said, like all image formats derived from video codecs, AVIF is limited to what AV1 can do (not just the spec, but also the software implementations), and things like transparency are effectively stapled onto the side of an AV1 video frame. It works but feels kinda meh, and libjxl (JPEG XL reference software) seems to be a lot better at the moment. You should also know that the AV1 spec, while "free" in a sense, has been built on top of VP9 (developed by Google) and that the reference implementation (and the current experimental software which will become the basis for AV2) is also mostly developed by Google from what I can tell. So they have a lot of influence over this particular codec. I would prefer having both, but if I have to choose then JPEG XL is the only logical choice, IMHO. It has much more features, is usable by a wider audience and not nearly as much under Google's control.
@T-Ball-o Nah bro, most weebs aren't smart enough to know the images even come in different formats. Most people in this space are wannabee math majors and part time compiler devs
@@flutterwind7686funny enough, MPV player is developed by a bunch of weebs because they want to simplify watching anime. So they do know a thing or two about codec technology.
Thank you for bringing awareness to JPEG XL! I make an effort to encode all images on my blog in both JXL and AVIF even though I'm the only one who cares.
Your narration style reminds me of The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy vinyl version (which has better voice acting and music than the radio version, although being more abbreviated). Not to mention, it's a great presentation on JPEG-XL vs AVIF. That said, I find it completely unacceptable to convert an existing library of JPEG photos lossily to any format and throw away the originals, because although it may look just as good (or even better) to the eye, it's no longer as good a record of history (e.g., in its retention of forensic-level detail).
I tried using a camera app that supported saving photos as PNG on my phone and discovered that the PNGs either don't support, at least commonly, a lot of the metadata tags that JPG files do, so while I can see what camera was used to take a JPG photo, the date and maybe even location, PNGs didn't have that information. For a family archivist like myself that data is usually far more important than making sure the images are all totally lossless.
Jpeg means joint photography expert group Photographers will save every drop of data as exif, even down to coordinates the picture is taken, what device used, camera's odometer on some cases, etc.
@@Nootlink Exactly. My favorite example for this is Spore. Every creature you created was saved as a PNG with the image being a thumbnail of the creature and the creature data saved as metadata. So you could export/import your creatures by sharing PNGs.
Exif can be embedded in png but it's never utilized. The actual best implementation of embedding arbitrary data in png files is in the game TerraTech where when you save a "robot" to Twitter/X it will be uploaded as a PNG file with instructions for the game how the robot is to be assembled like Lego bricks.
Google desires to control the standards in order to progressively add authoritative control and copyright/IP management protocols and more effective watermarks embedded into digital resources, IMHO.
The fact Chromium can bump off JPEG XL because of market share is just, horrible. We really need more than Firefox running on their own rendering engines.
absolutely! we need more browsers to use gecko like they use chromium
Safari is its own engine, WebKit :) Apple is a fan of jxl so hopefully this forces Google to support it
the fact apple is supporting it may be the only saving grace for jpeg XL which seems to be better based off what I'm seeing here
Ladybird browser can show JPEG XL images on websites since a few weeks ago. Hopefully Ladybird gains some market share.
Makes it funnny that google lost today in their monopoly case
I think Google perfectly highlighted why they have a dangerously powerful control over how the internet will be shaped when they removed the JPEG XL support. So many huge companies have been working hard to make this format more widely supported and yet they can simply just close the discussion and win.
During Interop 2024, a project for getting various web features well supported across browsers, JPEG XL won the popular vote by a huge margin. And yet, when the presented their picks for what to work on it was strangely missing. They claimed a lack of consensus. No wonder which party wasn't willing to budge…
I meant if you try to look at AVIF it does look good on lossless and not sure about JPEG XL.
rarely does the better format win... the more popular format wins (popular with big companies not people people don't matter we use what we get what's happening under the hood is irrelevant to the enduser)... else we would've never gotten CDs but instead would use LaserDisc or ZipDisc... and we would've never gotten Bluerays but HDDVD would've won... we wouldn't have spend 50 years watching stuff on our CRTs etc etc etc etc
I've seen this also in IETF standards. If it weren't for a certain group we would've gotten a significantly worse QUIC implementation because Google just tried to steamroll their version through the IETF. And don't get me started on the insanity of the in browser DRM shit.
@@UberFoX yeah go tell Brave to make their own engine... i'm sure they'll get on it right away because it's so worth it... and even if they did the 3 people using brave won't change anything
@@LoFiAxolotl VHS vs Betamax...
But sometimes, DDR beats RDRAM :).
I didn't expect a man in spandex pants power sitting when I asked to know why jpeg is dying.
Just like what women say, "my face is up here", lol.
@@stinkycheese804 no its not, not for either sex and all the sexless people either.
a surprise to be sure but a welcome one
@@xBINARYGODx That makes no sense. Have you considered a new hobby? How about a puppy but a stuffed one instead of live?
I was happy when his cat broke the recording. A bit creepy.
beginning of the video: ah ok, philip ist nerding about image compression again...
end of the video: to the weapons, we've gotta save jpegxl !!!
I've never been so happy to see Apple supporting a format, firefox alone doing it wouldn't be enough
@@WayStedYou Firefox was ready to fully remove it back when the Chrome news dropped.
@@WayStedYou Heartbreaking: The Worst Person You Know Just Made A Great Point
very rare apple dub
Hilarious how accurate comment is.
@@baseline7505 lmao, great reference
Whats also important to note is that JPEG XL has specific encoding features for 'artifical' images, stuff like screenshots and what not. So where a typical lossy codec will mess up your screenshots JPEG XL will keep them clean and almost completely lossless. It even works for mixed data, so if you have a screenshot that contains natural images it will compress them using lossy image compression while keeping the rest lossless. Thats something that no other codec has at the moment, and I think this gives it the definite advantage over any other format.
Interesting to hear about its optimisations for synthetic content- where did you read about this?
@2kliksphilip I've stumbled upon while reading the XL whitepaper (I was implementing JPEG XS at the time) but there is also a good write up on the jpeg-xl reference implementation on github.
XL has several codec modes, the lossy one is called 'VarDCT' and the lossless one is called 'Modular'.
The coder can switch between these two at any point in the image using a feature called 'Sub-imaging'.
There are also some other less documented features like post-process artificial noise (which can be used to add in image noise lost during the compression), image patching for the efficient compression of repeating tiles like text and splines where the image coder can detect curves in the image and encode them separately which can help mitigate blocky artifacts around curves.
I'm not sure how well most implementations support all these features. I know that the reference implementations does support them.
There is a very extensive benchmark which unfortunately I cant send the link to here on RUclips which compares different image codecs in lossless scenarios which was posted on the r/AV1 subreddit.
In this benchmark its shown just how bad AVIF compares to XL at this job, with files being 63% larger on average and a whopping 140% larger in the worse case (which was comic panels).
Its also shown that BMF and EMMA both beat XL by about 5% and 10% on average respectively, but considering that both are very slow closed source compressors developed in Russia that's unlikely to be adopted.
@@2kliksphilip I've stumbled upon while reading the XL whitepaper (I was implementing JPEG XS at the time) but there is also a good write up on the github of the ImageMagick JPEG XL reference implementation.
There are essentially two different codec modes - VarDCT and Modular. The VarDCT mode is the 'natural image' part of the codec while the Modular mode is designed for 'artificial' images and was inspired by parts of WebP and FLIF+FUIF. The coder can switch between them at any point in the image thanks to a feature called sub-imaging.
I believe that most implementations support this already. Typically some content detection algorithm is used to determine what mode should be used for a given section.
In addition to the modes there are also three 'filters' that can be applied after the image has been decoded. There is artificial noise which can help in the situation you described in the video where the codec removes film grain. During compression the coder can detect that noise is present in the image and make a mathematical model of the noise. During decompression this noise can then be reapplied (or also left out if so desired).
Next there is patching which is mainly there to help with text. I don't think many encoders support it but the idea is that if you have repeated patterns you can encode each pattern once and just stamp them where they occur again.
Last there is an option to draw (filled) splines which can help with diagrams and rounded ui elements which can leave famously bad compression artifacts. I don't think any encoder implements this yet but they may in the future.
@@2kliksphilip I've stumbled upon while reading the XL whitepaper (I was implementing JPEG XS at the time) but there is also a good write up on the github of the ImageMagick JPEG XL reference implementation.
There are essentially two different codec modes - VarDCT and Modular. The VarDCT mode is the 'natural image' part of the codec while the Modular mode is designed for 'artificial' images and was inspired by parts of WebP and FLIF+FUIF. The coder can switch between them at any point in the image thanks to a feature called sub-imaging.
I believe that most implementations support this already. Typically some content detection algorithm is used to determine what mode should be used for a given section.
In addition to the modes there are also three 'filters' that can be applied after the image has been decoded. There is artificial noise which can help in the situation you described in the video where the codec removes film grain. During compression the coder can detect that noise is present in the image and make a mathematical model of the noise. During decompression this noise can then be reapplied (or also left out if so desired).
Next there is patching which is mainly there to help with text. I don't think many encoders support it but the idea is that if you have repeated patterns you can encode each pattern once and just stamp them where they occur again.
Last there is an option to draw (filled) splines which can help with diagrams and rounded ui elements which can leave famously bad compression artifacts. I don't think any encoder implements this yet but they may in the future.
(youtube deleted this like 5 times now, maybe this sticks)
@@2kliksphilip I've stumbled upon while reading the XL whitepaper (I was implementing JPEG XS at the time) but there is also a good write up on the github of the ImageMagick JPEG XL reference implementation.
There are essentially two different codec modes - VarDCT and Modular. The VarDCT mode is the 'natural image' part of the codec while the Modular mode is designed for 'artificial' images and was inspired by parts of WebP and FLIF+FUIF. The coder can switch between them at any point in the image thanks to a feature called sub-imaging.
I believe that most implementations support this already. Typically some content detection algorithm is used to determine what mode should be used for a given section.
(youtube deleted this like 5 times now, maybe this sticks. made it shorter this time)
So a format designed by Google, heavily implemented by Google, promoted by Google, and without competition in Google's own suite because they chose not to support its opposition is getting ahead?
Hello? Monopoly Commission?
Their reputation is already deteriorating, so I still used Floorp either way.
They're using an old tactic called customer acquisition or growth over loses, until other companies or something are bankrupt, after there's no competition, they then they'll start ROI.
The antitrusts are already after Google, who just lost a big case recently in the US. Turns out they are indeed a Monopoly.
AVIF is developed by the entire industry not just Google
@@andreaciccarello any github to see what they did?
They did this with WebP once. They probably think they can do it a second time.
JPEG XL seems to be the better option to me, loading pictures top down sends us back to the 90s with dial up downloading images.
Well I'd rather have top down loading images compared to what most websites do which show a spinning circle, and if it's twitter, just doesn't load anything
I’d rather have it load topdown and i can see when it’s finished. Instead of wondering, is this the right resolution or is the image not fully loaded yet?
@@BaggyPop real. it is like a built in progress bar
yes. its didgusting, we should be moving forwards, not backwards.
curse everyone who supports such formats
@@njdotson That's typically not the images taking so long to load, it's the 40MB of Javascript, trackers and video ads...
AVIF says AVIF is better, surprise!!
This has the "We investigated ourselves and found nothing wrong" -vibes.
Yep, readed 2 blogs about new image codecs, both show JpegXl to be same size or smaller than AVIF.
And AVIF is horrible in lossless mode, almost as large as plain PNG, since video codecs are not made with lossless mode in mind. (WebP performs quite well, since it uses a differnt algorithm for lossless mode, instead of VP8-based)
@@Finnishmanni reminds me of linus tech tips response to their recent criticism(s)/allegations
@@rj7250a I dunno if that applies to HDR images.
@@mvstermlnd WEBM/WEBP are VP8.
Here's a fun fact! The progressive loading feature of JPEG XL is actually also seen in the older PNG standard. PNG is able to use a technique called two-dimensional interlacing, where each tile in the grid is filled in sync, instead of just drawing the entire image from top to bottom. If the browser supports it, it will be able to (poorly) interpolate the rest of the image until it fully loads. Pretty cool!
This matters to me because my internet used to be awful sometimes that interpolation was all I got to see.
PNG is my favorite format.
@@brianhawthorne7603 me too, so much memories with transparency and animation, while non-png's are just fighting over other features and the occasional transparency support. Will probably like Jpeg XL too cause I read it supports animation and transparency.
I heard even in the Photography industry they either use .tif or a specific version of jpeg(not jpeg xl last time i remember)
This whole feature honestly sounds like a nightmare to me, never knowing when I'll really be looking at the full quality version. I much prefer the loading from top to bottom.
@@MangaGamified We use RAW files from camera and depending on the customer we will ship them the raw image sensor data and let them do the work, but otherwise we usually ship a TIFF image or a PSD file (Photoshop native).
The formatting is also different depending on is the primary use gonna be digital color space or print medium.
format wars 1980s: we are going to make the coolest tech possible so people want to buy it
modern format wars: "we have no plans to implement this feature"
There are other modern image formatts developed for specific applications such as medical imaging, there's OpenEXR. JPEG2000 seems to have kicked a bucket without anybody noticing - at least I have not ran over an image in the wild yet. JPEG has no alpha channel. It would be nice if we could settle on an image format that satisfies the whole industry for a few decades, more than a mere JPG replacement and one that unifies image (and ideally video) formats.
The coolest tech _lost_ in the 1980s. Betamax was technically superior to VHS - it lost anyway because it wasn't quite as practical.
@@KillahMate Betamax? Laserdisc, nigga! Same point, though.
monopoly wars. thanks government for allowing it.
@@thewhitefalcon8539 For the good and bad - the computer industry is developing at a speed that governments and regulatory authorities are having a hard time to cope with.
Rip JPEGXL
As a web developer, I would kill for progressive decode. I always spend hours implementing my own progressive decoding with thumbhash
I hope to one day understand your fancy words magic man
To make things worse, placeholders like thumbhash don't really replace progressive decoding. They only offer a very low-resolution "preview" (if you can even call it that). Progressive decoding is literally what it says, it offers several levels of detail that are progressively loaded in as the image is downloaded. If the image is hiDPI, the second-to-last level might already look pretty good on a low-DPI display, in fact.
However, it can also be argued that if the image format is more efficient thanks to not bothering about progressive decoding, less time will be spent downloading and decoding the image. This means progressive decoding becomes less relevant as connctions become faster.
JPEG was an oddity here because its progressive mode made for smaller images than non-progressive mode (this was the opposite of PNG). The only downside was decoding time which was slower, but it was a non-issue on anything but the lowest-end mobile devices (or for tiny images like avatars).
@@lukekline9513 I mean this video basically shows you an example, loading top down vs loading instantly a lower quality image that goes to 100% after a moment
@@lukekline9513adam7 is not a new nor hard to understand thing
The video doesn't say it, but JPEG (not XL) also has progressive decoding (if properly encoded), works in all browsers too
Here’s an idea: hopefully the ongoing antitrust suit against Google will scare them into supporting jpeg xl again out of fear of the lack of support looking anti competitive
@@chikkin.salad.sandwichyes but it could influence their behavior in the short term
Get this though: jpeg xl was also developed (in part) by google. Problem is it's some European google people who do other data compression things, and there appears to be some weird politics/rivalry thing going on with the US (i think) google people who work on the browser who seem to favor their friends working on video codecs. It's really weird and hard to understand.
i doubt it u think these people understand different between png jpeg jpg and these tbh even I don't know
I think Chrome had JPEG XL support for a little less then a year before removing it. It's stupid they could remove it after already adding it.
@@admiralkaede perhaps, but the lawsuit is being done by a federal agency, not the dinosaurs in congress, and they tend to be more technocratic and consult as much expert opinions as they can to make the best case possible against companies
AVIF's article on AVIF is like the Obama awards Obama a medal meme.
I've been following JPEG XL for a long long time, and i'm hoping that Apple's support for the format pressures Google into adding it for Chrome in the future
heres the thing: this wasnt an apple effort, it was added to the webkit web engine (that safari is based on) by volunteers and apple just took it as it came
@@coolbean9880that's fine, as long as they don't remove it from WebKit.
@@coolbean9880 I mean hey, for all intents and purposes, that's a big W for JPEG XL
Safari/Mac has also supported JPEG 2000 for long time but that hasn’t made Google do anything...
Apple is more likely to push for HEIC which is the same thing as AVIF but with a mpeg/h26* frame instead of a AV1 frame. HEIF is that "standard to unite them all", being a container format it provides support for HEIC, PNG, AVIF, JPEG, and JPEG XL image formats.
0:05 not true, hank Hill doesn't know what a jpeg is
He sure doesn't look like he knows what a Jay peg is.
neither does yesod 😔
He just wants a picture of a got dang hotdog!
@@SupercoolRadicoolHow is that son of his these days? Still ain't right?
Multiple tests have shown that JPEG XL outperforms AVIF when targeting high-quality photographs.
I worry that in order to justify AVIF's existence, everything will be hypercompressed and just degrade the general image quality of the web. The bandwidth saving is kind of moot when you need multiple megabytes of JavaScript just to open the front page of a modern website anyway.
Haha, isn't it funny how many modern programs are based on Chromium these days and use 500MB RAM just to render a freakin' text chat window... And this same company is telling us they care about loading times? MSN Messenger used to load instantly on a Pentium 3 on a slow mechanical hard drive yet Discord takes like 20 seconds to load on a Ryzen 7 with 32GB RAM and an NVME SSD...
If they care so much about loading times maybe they should consider turning off their VIDEO ADS...
@@Pyroteq electron will be the reason normies will start using FOSS programs that actually respect users
@@versy187 Pfft, normies won't ever do anything smart. They'll just keep letting their lives get worse and assume there's nothing they can do about it. It's what defines them.
@@versy187 What's up with electrons?
@@Pyroteq They couldn't care less about your experience. As long as they can scrape off terabytes from their own datacenters, they'll do whatever it takes.
jpeg-xl supports hdr, alpha channel, and animation, all at the same time with either lossy or lossless compression. its a winner in my book
AND ANIMATION? That actually sick, but as always the big companies decides what the standard is gonna be
Doesn't WebP support all of those?
@@qm3ster Yeah, and AVIF too minus lossless compression. Also animated AVIFs feel a little redundant, but you can make them.
@@qm3ster it doesnt do hdr or wide colour gamut and is limited in resolution
@@nanopone AVIF supports both HDR and wide colour gamuts, and the resolution limits are high enough to be irrelevant. The colour depth limitations don't really matter either, as more than 12-bit is past the point of diminishing returns. And that (diminishing returns) is also why it's not future-proofing to support more. That said, JPEG XL has some other huge advantages that make it a better option. Being able to get a 20% size saving on existing lossy JPEG files with lossless compression is a big deal, for example.
it's almost as if big corporations decide industry trends.
At least when there’s not a monopoly then it’s 10 to 15 corporations deciding it.
Google has been really getting on our nerves lately
That progressive decoding feature feels like magic!
I really hope google changes their mind about JpegXL
Or makes an AVIF 2 while avif is still in its infancy.
interestingly, that was already a feature of jpeg2000, which was made in (surprise) 2000
jpeg 2000 was basically jpegXL but a small bit worse and 24 years ago, but it can't be opened in windows by default to this day :(
@@Shadowreaper8435mostly because jpeg2000 is a huge mess of a standard - it's somewhat literally the middle frame of xkcd 927. they sat *everyone* who could ever have a use case for storing images together in a room and included everyone's suggestions.
so we allow both lossless and lossy compression. oh, and compression that's only lossless in some places because that's cool for medical uses.
giant images, moving images, whatever you could think of.
arithmetic encoding, because IBM is gonna throw a hissy fit otherwise.
so nobody wants to implement all that, and jpeg2000 never took off.
@@Shadowreaper8435 But progressive decoding is already part of the original JPEG format, so isn't new at all :)
Though HTML already does support lowsrc attribute where one could put superduper optimized tiny file for the image which would be loaded first and then later automatically replaced with the AVIF file once it loads.
Dude, if your parents can even back up files to a hard drive, consider yourself lucky. Where I live, it's a constant stream of old people proudly proclaiming that they don't know how to use a computer--as if that's a flex. Old people who don't learn how to use a computer in a basic way aren't stupid, they're lazy.
Take it further. I deal with endless boomers who have had smart phones since their introduction and they brag about not knowing how to use it. Imagine buying a $1000 device and never learning about it.
Boom booms are a special breed of idiocy.
@@postplays Same people that complain that kids these days don't know how to use paper maps, rotary phones, tv guides, card catalogs, or write a check. All things that are completely or almost completely unnecessary tasks in typical life.
I somehow doubt it you'd have the same capacity to learn and adapt to new technology at 70-80 years of age...
boomers are so cringe lmao
@@BlueBlossomsBlues My grandmother spent 75 years not wanting to learn new techs. Since a child, she didn't like new stuff, she was a pen, paper and books person, only uses two buttons on the TV and only reluctantly got a VHS for me to watch cartoons. She's a writer and she still writes everything by hand and then gives to someone (usually me) to type it out, in spite of having bought every XTPO typewriter and a laptop, and just never "got used to using them, too complicated". THEN. Her brick phone died and I gave her my old smartphone as a quick replacement. I just told her how to make calls and send messages, because that's what she used the brickphone for. 8h later and she's sending me youtube links on whatsapp of movies from her childhood, figured out all by herself (what youtube was, how to share a link, how to create a whatsapp account, etc), three days later and she's doing collages and GIFs from photos she took of her flower garden. So I find that the whole "old dogs can't learn new tricks" is bullshit, people usually don't WANT to learn for whatever reason - if they do, they'll learn anything, because new technologies are generally simple and intuitive these days. It's all about wanting to learn, not capacity or adaptation.
nice pants
spooderman watch?v=f_Pcu6wTzoA
They're certainly, err, unique.
What are those😮
Spiderman 2024
How rude of him to not leave a link to where he got those
edit: joke over. send the amazon link now
i remember looking into what was blocking firefox support and it came down to chrome lacking support. "you can't just advocate for adding a new codec" but the moment chrome adds a new codec they'll race to have parity.
google and apple are both shitty companies but at least they keep each other in check.
Apple supporting it is basically the only thing that is going to save what to me looks to be the better option
What do you expect? Apple and Google are trillion dollar companies, Mozilla Corporation is tiny by comparison.
It really does seem like Mozilla has given up even trying to justify their existence anymore.
@@stevethepocket manifest V3 is one of many other reasons for it to exist. Sometimes not being mean is all what needed.
They have support in nightly behind a flag. They have the implementation. They're just refusing to use it. Mozilla is apparently completely baffled at the idea that maybe not every web standard needs to start with Chrome. The fact that Safari did it before Mozilla is just plain embarrassing. People will tell you Firefox is important to prevent a Chromium monopoly, but it's a moot point if Mozilla is entirely content with following Google's whims. It's extremely frustrating. Defenders of the open web my ass. They're just sell-outs. Looking forward to Servo and Ladybird.
I don't know why this was recommended to me, but this was informative and I'm all for the support of more image formats.
The worst part about companies trying to push a new format down to users is that there's literally *NO SUPPORT* for it anywhere else! To this day most file viewers and instant messaging apps can't open .webp and yet whenever you want to download an image you are given something you can't actually send to another person without converting it into a .png first!
The same goes for .webm. I know most websites are using it but I'm yet to see any native video app that isn't streaming simply open a .webm file without any fuss.
ImageGlass supports webp and it's not the only one. The later versions of Photofiltre do too. Edge, Safari, Firefox, XnView, Krita, Aseprite, GIMP, Paint dot Net, IrfanView, LibreOffice, Windows Photos, Clip Studio Paint and CorelDraw all support webp. Hex, Sumatra PDF, Godot and Ren'py all support it too. You're literally incorrect.
Was looking for a webp comment!
@@Exponaut_R-01 Windows media player does it for me - k-lite codec pack solves this.
@@Exponaut_R-01 What? Video players have been playing .webm for like 7 years now. Are you using a Nokia phone from 2003?
Don't forget JPEG-XL also has an excellent lossless mode! It compresses even smaller than WebP Lossless in my experience, which already beats PNG by a healthy 30-50%.
What doesn't beat PNG?
Anything you suggest for encoding JXL Lossless? I tried it a while back with Affinity Photo and... it was NOT lossless. I was using it to compress a bunch of WoW screenshots that were TGA format and there was visible, significant loss of quality on basically every very fine detail in the image. The area had a floor pattern of lines all over the screen and like 80% of them straight up disappeared in the JXL Lossless version.
Really? I've seriously struggled to get either AVIF or JXL to beat WebP in lossless. WebP's custom lossless compression thing seems to work incredibly well.
@@lwinklly please post examples
@@Xathianlikely bad implementation. Try XL Converter
Maybe if Google pushes AVIF hard enough, they'll stop pushing WebP. That would be a silver lining.
Well that's more of a douche vs turd sandwich situation there, LOL. I dislike both SO MUCH. 🤮
Webp is the worst thing to happen to the Internet in a long time.
They created both standards. Although WebP was based on WebM based on On2's VP9/VP8, and google bought On2, so yeah.
My hatred for WebP (widely supported [by browsers], but lossy by default) and APNG (refused to have a different file extension, animation not widely supported) makes me cheer on for JXL, even without the progressive loading. It reminds me of interlaced PNG, but more sophisticated and a logical next step after JPEG.
*Non-free next step after JPEG. Or are you going to pay for me?
@@davidlloyd1526 JPEG XL is an open standard with a reference implementation and a publicly available implementation called JPEG40.
Why not AVIF?
@@qq84 ...watch the video.
@@cmmartti I did and his points are not enough to change it.
Future computers trying to open a JPEG after searching image of hotdogs: "Do I look like I know what a JPEG is? I just want a picture of a got dang hot dog!"
Microsoft Paint, always reliable
with the sound also getting mumbled and bass'ified every second as you read the quote
@@LTPottenger Because there won't anymore Google by then hopefully
i thought of hank hill when you said that for some reason
@@Personan642 Maybe that's because this is a King of the Hill refrence
As a pixel artist I can wholeheartedly say, LONG LIVE THE .PNG!!!!
Windows ICO files since Vista can have PNG images embedded, with full RGBA.
I don't get why GIFs have come back in popularity in recent years. The PNG is so much superior, why bring back the GIF?
@@Scripture-Man Animation in an img tag.
@@soundspark GIFs are useful for uploading or creating a gallery of animations, but in a video game we use sprite sheets of PNGs so each frame has accurate positional data as well as the option to play them forwards, backwards, or only a certain number of frames within a given time span.
@@soundspark APNG also exists
Please don't sit like that, I was sick on my keyboard
real
~12° from a vandamm I reckon
I fail to see any issue
Philip is perfectly handsome
And dont hold the microphone either, buy a mic stand
I nutted on my keyboard😥
Neat. I've been using AVIF due to that study but I'll take another look at JPEG XL because the slow image loading of huge AVIF files is what has been bothering me.
Always make sure to get the latest version. There have been big improvements to JXL speed, not very long ago.
As a nice bonus, you can now make Windows create thumbnails for JXL files, just need to look up and download a dll.
@@Maxoverpowerwhere is it
If a preview picture is needed, a second AVIF should be used.
I tried using avif, but many of the tools create artifacts or are slow. Space is too cheap to waste that much power, Phillip did all that to save 6 dollars in space.
@@churblefurbles It's not about storage space but transfer volume.
I just hope one day we will see that evil corporation sued to bankruptcy.
this reminds me of my recent struggle with APNG. I personally am tired of using GIF, its so old and not really appropriate anymore. Yet we barely see APNGs supported, they feature higher framerate, bitrate, transparency. Its just a way more modern format, yet you see apps like Discord removing support for it and here we are, still stuck with plain old GIF once more....
It would be even better if there was some generally agreed standard to indicate mp4s or webms should be loopable, that would cover most usecases for GIF.
@@averesenso you can actually make loop-able webp's without any hacks as its actually a hidden feature for some reason, mp4's seem illogical as its a video format rather than an image format and its size is considerably different to a gif/apng/webp eitherway mp4's can be looped in html which is where most people will even look at one that needs to be looped and most video players have a loop feature
Funny you should mention that, since animation is actually supported by the JPEG-XL standard; kinda weird philip didn't mention that bit.
@@averesenso oh god i *strongly* disagree with you here
video codecs are lossy and will mangle information where they think you wont notice (commonly seen with dark scenes and falling snow especially on older codecs), gif and apng dont do this (though gif can require color compression when converting from other formats, idk i mostly make pixel art so i haven't even hit 256 colors)
so yea, if im manually animating something, checking to make sure every frame is how i want it to be, i do not want compression to mess that up at literally the last step and lossy video codecs just do not guarantee that
@@coolbean9880 Well yeah GIF is decent for pixel art. Regardless, the codecs supported by the webm and mp4 containers have lossless modes.
R.I.P JPEGMafia 😔
On the one hand... screw Google.
On the other hand... screw JPEG.
It's probably better to support JPEG because they're not quite as evil as the MPEG.
Peggy 😓😓😓
Rest in piss
you think you know me...
AVIFMafia
I was sure the pants had something to do with the content of the video, but no... He just wanted a spread eagle spiderman subplot.
Music jumpscare 8:07
CS:GO intro sequel
@@Snooopy28fr
masterpiece of a video mr phil, the pants, the antlers, the compression shots, niche fileformat talk, fluffykins... just perfection
and the endscreen link to next video
I love when we get to see Philip face to face
What I appreciate most about this video presentation is that you pressed your manliness into that package and then placed it dead center frame and right up front in our faces. Nice.
Yeah that's what I DIDN'T appreciate about this "presentation".
Biggest man ever on the smallest couch legally possible
Welcome to uk
No one tell JD.
god thank you thank you thank you thank you for making this video. almost all images on my pc are jpeg x. its lossless compression is insane and its lossy compression on the same level, if not *better* for the same image quality with avif. getting this word out on a large audience is sorely needed
God? WTF does a "god" have to do with anything? Loser.
does windows show jpeg x thumbnails? also do social media sites like instagram support them?
It can be added and iirc insider version of Windows has partial support as well. (Not sure if they show on thumbnail in the insider version however since I don't use Windows). And regarding Instagram: No idea if they actually do any magic on their site but engineers of the company running Instagram, Meta, have been spoken out in favour of JPEG XL and the immense savings it brings on the JPEG XL issue on zhe Chromium issue tracker.
Love this style, can see how far you’ve come with ur on screen confidence
So when is JPEGMafia gonna drop a diss track against all these other formats?
I rather have a non profit group fo experts than having ONE company behind a standard picture format. Thats how we got Adobes and Microsofts defacto standard monopolies.
Ohhhh man PNGYakuza's gonna be DESTROYED
Man, these people are missing out on some good music...
I still hate WEBP. It doesnt work on anything. At all. Not even on windows, sometimes they break theyr transparency on thumbnails just to make me giggle. Or piss me off, it depends on how im feeling that day, idk.
Still, screw WEBP, and thanks for teaching me there are actual differences between a jpeg and a jpeg. Sometimes I thought it was blurrier seemingly at random, but now I know they can be different.
webp and webm are actually garbage
Linux is working very well in any of my apps.
Yeah i wish webp never happened so we could continue to download 3mb pngs on mobile
Again, Google decided we wanted Webp so we have no choice.
I don't see the problem with WEBPs. Poor support for a codec doesn't make the codec bad. If you can't view WEBPs then change your viewer to something more modern. XNView is the only serious image viewer and it views them. Photoshop opens them. What more do you need?
Progressive image loading was a fantastic feature back in the 1990s when dial-up modems took minutes to display a single image. But today I hardly ever see it used on the web.
You don't see it because 'modern' image formats don't support it, and websites and image proxies code to the lowest common denominator. webp and avif basically can't support it because of how they work. PNG does support it if the image is encoded with Adam7, but that does usually increase filesize slightly so most people don't bother.
Websites have been doing workarounds for this for ages - instead of using a proper progressive image format, they load low-resolution thumbnails first. If you're ever on a slow internet connection you can see this kind of thing all over the place.
My memory is strange. I thought images switched to progressive loading back in the 90s and we hadn't gone back since then.
@@animowany111 I think there is no way to tell the browser to extract this low-quality preview from an image and use it as a thumbnail. it would require more complicated communication with the server, caching will be more difficult, etc. and there always would be an old browser, which doesn't support all that stuff properly, and would be slow, so web devs won't use this feature anyway to stay compatible
so it's easier to use pre-made thumbnails in separate files
I'm convinced Phil lives in a different universe than us, that's experiencing floating point inaccuracy.
let me out im sick of writing special exceptions for maths routines just to make sure 0.3 is actually treated as 0.3 instead of 0.299999975
@@coolbean9880 why not multiply every number by 10, add 0.5, truncate it into Integer, then divide by 10f into decimal again?
@@xponen this is soooo cool I just discovered this today. Thank you so much for teaching me.
@@xponen hmm, i guess that could work, altough bitshifting would be faster than multiplying and dividing
@@speedgdepending on number of calls and specific device power, difference could be negligible.
Nice 0.1 second caboosing at the end there, Philip.
My mistake, upon further inspection, it appears the caboosing is actually 1 second, my apologies.
cabussy
I forgive you.
Unforgivable.
NO HIS MUSIC IS SO GOOD THIS CANNOT BE HAPPENING
Wouldn’t the neutral position for Firefox be to implement support for both AVIF and JPEG XL?
dropping neutral position- with the least amount of work. Being actually "neutral" would cost a lot in programming "man hours", at least.
Firefox doesn't care, they had a working JPEGXL support since Firefox 90 and they still today decided to disable it by default. Everyone want to support AVIF and WEBP
God I love this channel. It’s one of the only channels that still feels like “old RUclips”.
Honestly, it's quite refreshing having interesting, well made content that isn't poorly produced or clickbait :)
Michael P too, he's still stuck in 2012.
your name/YThandle reminds me what was bad about the old WWW generally. Some things were better, some things not so much
I agree. I feel like I never really just stumble upon random videos about topic I barely know. But that was kind of what made RUclips cool in the first place. I'm in such a content rut lately.
Great video, good information. Critique on the editing: At the end, more time would be needed to see the final XKCD, also it was obstructed by your recommended next video. Earlier, some of the quickly intercut bits of information were just too fast to be digested. - Hope this helps :)
I agree, made me have to keep rewinding & pausing an otherwise very informative & entertaining video.
Philip is a master of making me care about subjects I previously did not care about
One thing I've learned in recent years is that almost all web standards have never been the optimal solution, and in many cases, the worst solution.
keeping in that "I skipped a line" bit was why i subbed. delightful delivery and concise info. thanks!
Finally some attention for JPEG-XL!
You mentioned some things I didn't even know, like the progressive decode. That feature would be an absolute game changer!
for who? remote african tribe?
@@ivok9846 Generally, it could lower the latency. Saving a bit of energy for everyone. Probably an speculation.
@@ivok9846 Say you're not a web developer without saying you're not a web developer
@@yogurtColombiano while they're wasting gwhs of power on ai hype that won't materialize....
@@ivok9846 Most of the world has shitty internet, mate.
I love the math that goes into making a JPEG....
Now I guess I will have to look up JPEG XL.
good luck, friend. you'll need it
It is x10 more complicated than jpg.
@@ArunG273 feel free to suggest videos or websites where the algorithm is explained. I will stop when I don't find it fun anymore so don't you worry. 😉
Lookup JPG-XL patent issues when you do that.
JPEG generally uses good ol' fashioned Huffman coding with its whole prefix-tree system. JPEG-XL uses something developed more recently called Asymmetric Numeral Systems. The best way I can think of to describe it is like standard positional notation for numbers, but completely _drunk._ The amount that each digit scales depends on the existing value and the digit itself. One benefit over Huffman coding is that Huffman coding always requires at least 1 bit per element, while "ANS" only needs to output bits when the represented number gets too big to store, meaning that for particularly common elements, you can sometimes process multiple of them before needing to output a single bit.
The math is actually _really cool_ if you enjoy math.
My suggestion for a reference would be Understanding the ANS Compressor by Kedar Tatwawadi.
Aside from that Pixel Predictors are a whole separate beast in JPEG-XL. Other formats might have a few predictors using the pixel above or beside the pixel currently being worked on to provide a base for its colour, with the value actually stored being the offset from this base. JPEG-XL has a whole bunch of options for pixel predictors, and the image can define where each predictor should apply and how. This basically results in JPEG-XL pixel predictors being an entire _bytecode_ that can be programmed to generate images from _0 pixel data!_ The result of this is sometimes called "JXL Art" and the results can be very cool and _absurdly tiny_ since the image is effectively procedurally generated rather than actually stored. It's especially good at making certain fractals.
If you're wondering about the Discrete Cosine Transform used in JPEG, don't worry, it hasn't gone anywhere, though the 8x8 DCT in JPEG has been joined by several other sizes of DCT, intended to be selected dynamically depending on where the detail in the image lies and how it's shaped (JXL even has non-square DCT options).
6:22 - Wow, feels weird to say this but kudos to Apple for giving support to both. That's something that is highly unusual for them lol. I guess Apple hasn't gotten into image formats.... yet....
Well, as long as they don't make old JPEG pictures completely inaccessible and obsolete like they almost did with Flash, I think it will be OK.
The immense amount of trauma from losing access to all my favourite childhood games was only negated thanks in no small part to the legends that created all the Flash emulators that now exist.
Except that flash was a horrible closed source technology.
@@akostadinov Closed source does not make software inherently bad. YT is closed source yet you're still here. Besides, Flash was developed at a time when open source was not mainstream. If Flash had been developed further to meet modern standards, perhaps the web dev (largely open source) ecosystem wouldn't be the mess it is in today.
@@LZE. first of all it is no coincidence that open source software is mainstream now. It is not just because some company developed great OSS project. But the development model proved to be more successful. Also it is better for us - the users.
RUclips is not popular because it is such a great piece of software. But because it allows free hosting of videos.
There are occasionally nice closed source applications and frameworks. But always the commercial owner will screw it up some day. End users have no alternatives. That's why everybody prefers open songs to begin with, to avoid vendor lock in and so on.
You can also check the free software foundation explanation what is free software and why you want to use free software.
@@akostadinov We're still allowed to love the media that used that awful tech. No need to crap on OP's main point.
@@ZaCloud-Animations___she-her the main point was that closed source was not inherently bad but it rather is. There are countless of examples of abandon-ware, bait-and-switch and other problems. Yes, a piece of software can be nice right now. But op exactly pointed out one example where things were really bad. Bad quality, security issues, resource hog, etc. Moreover it was not usable or not same usability on linux and other platforms. And then nobody can do anything except the vendor which rightfully may not care. But then why should I rely on a single vendor if I have better alternatives?
How is this crapping on an argument?
While on it, you can love anything. People love all kinds of horrible things. Especially if you are just a user and prefer not to see the issues. If you look at controversial topics, you can see all small creators complaining that they get different treatment than big media. They get demonetized, videos removed, appeal mostly non-existent. What is to love here, censoring?
But if you care about here and now, and you are ready to accept all the risks, then that's fine. Just be informed and be prepared. And btw it was not google first trying to get rid of it. It was everybody. Mozilla and Apple too. I think Firefox was first, then Chrome included by default and when they got market share, they killed it for good. But it was evil IMO, just for another reason.
The commit to remove JXL support from chromium was authored by Google employee James Zern, one of the authors of WebP. Seems to me like he wanted to take out the competitor and abused his position as a Google employee to do so.
and/or google wants to save a few bucks on server space over the next 5 years before throwing it away and adopting whatever new format in a few more years
Those pants?......
this is kind of bs because JPEG XL is basically my dream image format, high compression and quick rendering are imperative IMO
I would also want an image renderer that can pause or terminate a download once a certain decipherability threshold is reached in low-bandwidth environments. Phone screens are so small that you usually shouldn't NEED to download an entire image unless you want to zoom into full res, and if you're quickly flipping through images in a gallery, they should load as FAST as possible, which means downloading many images at once (for thumbnails and low res facsimiles)
I want one I don't have to pay patent money for...
@@davidlloyd1526 jpeg xl has an open source bsd licensed reference implementation called libjxl. Patents shouldn’t be an issue here.
I think you went to the wrong video. This one is about JPEG XL which you do not pay patent money for.
The fact that Windows has such crappy support for non-standard image formats annoys me a lot. How hard is it to have a proper preview for svg vectors? Why do I have to use a random extension from the Microsoft store?
If you are talking about Explorer thumbnails it requires a decoder registered to Windows Explorer.
I love when RUclips recommends me random stuff like this. Great video, mate.
This strip was actually pretty funny 0:44
Close enough, thank you for the album
this is insane
Honestly the main problem I have with new standards many applications are not expecting new extensions. Like webp was created in 2010 it took 13 years(May 3, 2023) before the basic windows photo viewer supported it. So when the majority of images you download from your browser are some new type it can be a pain to edit/view do anything with that image.
WHAT? as far as i know Jpegmafia just released a new album and is doing just fine
It's okay, he recovered from this
@@thecynth3820No that was jpegyakuza. Jpegmafia just died of cerebral cereal disease. (CCD, makes your grey matter become harder and brittle, and look like corn flakes... If you think im joking, google it.)
Its dark and hell is hot
I was so scared, i thought u were saying that JPEGMAFIA is dying
I like how you just rock the mic, the tights, the remote control.. Who cares? Your content means the "I don't give a fark" attitude is a perk.
I love JPEGs new album
Peggy, the guy from death grips
2:55 The cat picture has a lot of interesting context
While everyone is asking about the pants, this one truly deserves an explanation... or better not...
Thank you for shinning a light on jpeg xl, great work
The half second of Phillips music at the end gave me a chuckle
I hate webp... I'd rather use an extention that saves as .png rather that the shitty .webp.
For me, jpegxl is the way whenever and if ever platforms support it more
I'm a blogger who loves adding anime GIF images to my posts, but they are soo damn huge. I switched to using soundless MP4s and using code to make them work in Wordpress embedded, and they work GREAT. But frustratingly, while "soundless MP4" should replace GIF entirely, I don't believe Google will be archiving my "not GIFs" and thus I'm taking a hit by posting them. Can you consider a post on why we need a "final" format for animated GIF style animations?
1:51 Hide the Pain Harold, is that you?
JPEG XL is another "open" standard that is paywalled by the ISO. I can't find anywhere else. Compare that to the AVIF spec which is freely available.
This is very important information, thanks.
Personally, having the entire reference library for JXL on GitHub is enough
That's a shame. Still, you can get around the paywall pretty easily if you know where to look. ;)
The problem is this: Webp exists since 2010 & has a stable spec since 2018 & as such is supported in about every image program & library while JPEG-XL existed only as early as 2018 & has had its first stable spec literally just 2 months ago in June this year. I agree that JPEG-XL sounds a lot better then AVIF & WebP but it's simply too early to adopt it yet.
And webp opens still literally nowhere
@@lynrayy not on linux, .heif .apng. .jxl .webp all open perfectly because the developers develop what they want and often the development is centered on one project which then can be used by many others
I thought it was odd that the video didn't even mention WEBP. Hard to understand what's happening in the world of modern codecs when you miss out the current generation.
@@lynrayy maybe don't use an outdated system. nowadays it is well supported.
@@andreaciccarello I'm on windows 11
JPEG isn't dying, he just made a banger album.
@5:38 I'd say that source may be a bit biased.
I really thought this was a fan video of an unreleased JPEGMAFIA track
It's so sad how google can dictate how most of us engage with the Internet. With format types, search results, advertising.
I've been following JPEG XL ever since it was just some guy's little image codec experiment called FLIF, that's where the progressive decode feature comes from. AVIF just doesn't make sense for images, ramping up the entire hardware decoding pipeline is fine for videos since they have lots of frames, but it's a ton of overhead for a single image, and then multiple of them perhaps on the same page.
I think it's absolutely hilarious the only way you can see the imperfections is if you zoom in on the picture. Which honestly doesn't really f****** matter.
it does matter with low resolution images with fine detail like 1920x1080 screenshots with fine text
@@gamecubeplayer yeah but you're only going to be able to see those imperfections if you zoom in. If you're not zoomed in you're never going to see those imperfections. So no it doesn't. when was the last time you zoomed in on a picture to try to read some text.
I think what JPEG XL has is a branding problem. Not only is it associated with pixelated images (due largely to how it's been used) and therefore lower quality, but it doesn't have the promotional power of a giant like Google to tout its benefits. Not that Google would do that; they've long since stopped making decisions that are good for the web at large (if they ever did) and are focused on what increases their own reach or locks users into their own apps and services.
JPEG-XL is backed by the Joint Photographics Experts Group (you may recognize their acronym; making image formats is kind of their thing), the ISO (that's the _International Standards Organization!_ Kind of a big deal for... just about _everything),_ and... _Google._
That's not a joke, JPEG-XL was in part developed and pushed by one of Google's teams in Europe. This team is notably not connected to Chrome's team who doesn't seem to be interested in working with them.
Aside from the people developping the format, it's also being promoted by some small names you may or may not have heard of, like Intel, Adobe, and Facebook.
I don't think its that, most people don't know what av1 is let alone avif, this is entirely top down manipulation.
One thing that AVIF is pretty neat for: Video thumbnails, or preview images when hovering over the seek bar. If the video is AV1, getting an AVIF thumbnail is pretty easy and fast.
That said, like all image formats derived from video codecs, AVIF is limited to what AV1 can do (not just the spec, but also the software implementations), and things like transparency are effectively stapled onto the side of an AV1 video frame. It works but feels kinda meh, and libjxl (JPEG XL reference software) seems to be a lot better at the moment.
You should also know that the AV1 spec, while "free" in a sense, has been built on top of VP9 (developed by Google) and that the reference implementation (and the current experimental software which will become the basis for AV2) is also mostly developed by Google from what I can tell. So they have a lot of influence over this particular codec.
I would prefer having both, but if I have to choose then JPEG XL is the only logical choice, IMHO. It has much more features, is usable by a wider audience and not nearly as much under Google's control.
The only people who care about this are weebs
@T-Ball-o Nah bro, most weebs aren't smart enough to know the images even come in different formats.
Most people in this space are wannabee math majors and part time compiler devs
@@flutterwind7686 i.e. the people furthest away from practical application
@@flutterwind7686funny enough, MPV player is developed by a bunch of weebs because they want to simplify watching anime. So they do know a thing or two about codec technology.
If the AVIF team says AVIF is the best image format then we should listen. After all they make the best image format. /circle
the finishing note of cabooss is just perfect. you are a magician of a video director; i'm glad to have been watching you for that long.
Thank you for bringing awareness to JPEG XL! I make an effort to encode all images on my blog in both JXL and AVIF even though I'm the only one who cares.
ain't nothing wrong with peggy dude, he just dropped his new album
Pants making me jealous.
2:45 orange cat activities
But he just dropped such a good album. Why do great artists always have to die so young. 😔
the centre of this video is where the party is at
I was not expecting this. Great research and presentation! 💯
Your narration style reminds me of The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy vinyl version (which has better voice acting and music than the radio version, although being more abbreviated). Not to mention, it's a great presentation on JPEG-XL vs AVIF. That said, I find it completely unacceptable to convert an existing library of JPEG photos lossily to any format and throw away the originals, because although it may look just as good (or even better) to the eye, it's no longer as good a record of history (e.g., in its retention of forensic-level detail).
I don't like JPG's lossy compression but I really want JXL to take off in spite of Google hating it for no reason
I tried using a camera app that supported saving photos as PNG on my phone and discovered that the PNGs either don't support, at least commonly, a lot of the metadata tags that JPG files do, so while I can see what camera was used to take a JPG photo, the date and maybe even location, PNGs didn't have that information. For a family archivist like myself that data is usually far more important than making sure the images are all totally lossless.
Jpeg means joint photography expert group
Photographers will save every drop of data as exif, even down to coordinates the picture is taken, what device used, camera's odometer on some cases, etc.
Weird, because PNG supports arbitrary metadata.
Maybe it's the camera app that doesn't support adding those metadata to PNG files
@@Nootlink Exactly. My favorite example for this is Spore. Every creature you created was saved as a PNG with the image being a thumbnail of the creature and the creature data saved as metadata. So you could export/import your creatures by sharing PNGs.
Exif can be embedded in png but it's never utilized. The actual best implementation of embedding arbitrary data in png files is in the game TerraTech where when you save a "robot" to Twitter/X it will be uploaded as a PNG file with instructions for the game how the robot is to be assembled like Lego bricks.
Google desires to control the standards in order to progressively add authoritative control and copyright/IP management protocols and more effective watermarks embedded into digital resources, IMHO.
Thought you meant JPEGMAFIA