cjawdb

6 ms·

1.
by cjawdb 3y ago
I mean, you realize that there are mathematical limits to how much you can compress information, right? And WebP/AVIF didn't achieve anywhere near 50% and were adopted by the Chromium team without issue because a few of them actua
2.
by cjawdb 3y ago
They did. It's called JXL. JXL is clearly technically superior to WebP and AVIF and the decisions from the Chromium team (not even Google as a whole, since they have a Google Research team working on JXL encoders/decoders) have fa
3.
by cjawdb 3y ago
HEIC is barely used and seems very cherry-picked to find something that IS still royalty encumbered. >Pretty much all modern video/audio/image codecs are The exact opposite is true. The most popular modern codecs are almost all
4.
by cjawdb 3y ago
I'm not sure why you didn't bother looking this up before commenting but JPEG XL is royalty-free and open source. There were some concerns raised well over a year ago about some specific subset of JXL's compression and they w
5.
by cjawdb 3y ago
"A solution to a vanishing edge case" is a wild-ass statement to make about progressive decoding.
6.
by cjawdb 3y ago
The commit to add the flag saying JXL was being removed soon was reviewed and approved by James Zern, who also created and authored the commit that actually ripped out the JXL code from Chromium. Zern is one of the co-authors of WebP and is
7.
by cjawdb 3y ago
LOL well that makes much more sense. Hopefully JXL doesn't go the way of JPEG2000 (based on how things have gone thus far and its impressive featureset, I think it might be safe).
8.
by cjawdb 3y ago
I don't disagree but unfortunately that's the state of Mozilla at the moment.
9.
by cjawdb 3y ago
100% agree. I'd say JXL is going to be the closest thing we get to a universal image format for quite some time. Almost completely superior to JPEG/PNG/GIF/WebP/etc. and clearly superior to AVIF in basically every w
10.
by cjawdb 3y ago
Firefox has next to zero marketshare (unfortunately and despite my best efforts to get people to use FF). There was never any chance that Mozilla was going to waste their very limited resources attempting to be the early adopters of an imag
11.
by cjawdb 3y ago
Phrasing this like "well Google must know best because they employ some subset of the people that worked on JXL" when the entire rest of the industry has been very overwhelmingly pro-JXL isn't very convincing. Also my point w
12.
by cjawdb 3y ago
I'm confused where you got "it was available for years and ignored in popular software" from? Most of the ISO standard was only published last year, with the last bit being published in October 2022. IIRC AVIF is almost ~4 ye
13.
by cjawdb 3y ago
More accurately, their justification was based on discredited benchmarks (which used a fairly old-even-at-the-time version of libjxl and IIRC created by the AVIF team)... and the commit to remove support was created by a co-author of WebP w
14.
by cjawdb 3y ago
This is the terrible explanation they gave for dropping support: https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=117805... "Thank you everyone for your comments and feedback regarding JPEG XL. We w