Does anyone from chromium/google intend to weigh in on this dispute of the validity of those benchmarks that were used to dismiss jpegXL? Independent benchmarks are showing that jpegXL is more performant, which would be in DIRECT OPPOSITION to the reasoning mentioned for the removal!
You have angered a large percentage of the developer community with this decision - as is evident from the many stars on the issue tracker, the frequent discussions on major forums, and even press coverage - yet NO representative from google has made any steps to address this and instead have steamed ahead removing the code from the repository. If google dont intend to respond in this group, and dont intend to respond on the issue tracker - how are we able to reach someone who can reassess and respond to this erroneous decision? On Tuesday, 13 December 2022 at 18:19:40 UTC+2 Markus K. wrote: > I find it very concerning that this decision is has evidently been based > on this bogous data: > https://storage.googleapis.com/avif-comparison/index.html > > 1. The speed comparison is based on a buggy and outdated JPEG > XL implementation. > 2. The filesize comparison is based on a metric that JPEG XL was not tuned > for. > > On top of that we seem to have completely misjudged ecosystem and industry > demand for JPEG XL . > And there seems to have been no consideration for certain features, which > I don't want to reiterate here, that AVIF just doesn't support. I think > there is a place for JPEG XL alongside AVIF. > > I would suggest to halt the removal of the JPEG XL experiment in Chromium > until this is addressed to prevent further harm based on bad science. > > On Sunday, December 4, 2022 at 7:00:22 PM UTC+1 ⸻ “How Things Work” > wrote: > >> https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=1178058 - Also >> requesting a reconsideration of.JXL as a format due to cross-industry >> interest from companies & consumers alike. Also on the grounds of it being >> hindered by being buried behind an obscure flag within beta builds :/ >> >> Could just revert the removal till the M111 or 112 builds and see how >> things stand then, would give time for debate *& a more fairer test of >> market sentiment for this open JPEG standard*. >> >> On Friday 2 December 2022 at 23:05:15 UTC Tomáš Poledný wrote: >> >>> Now you should run your tests again with this: >>> https://chromium-review.googlesource.com/c/chromium/src/+/4031214 >>> >>> Dne pátek 2. prosince 2022 v 22:20:19 UTC+1 uživatel Jarek Duda napsal: >>> >>>> If there are objectivity concerns, maybe there available tests of >>>> independent sources? >>>> For example Phoronix often uses libjxl in benchmarks - at least for >>>> speed getting very different numbers: >>>> https://www.phoronix.com/review/aocc4-gcc-clang/3 - maybe there are >>>> available other independent tests? >>>> >>>> [image: obraz.png] >>>> >>>> On Friday, December 2, 2022 at 6:57:35 PM UTC+1 Yaowu Xu wrote: >>>> >>>>> Following Jim’s previous note, here is a link to tests >>>>> <https://storage.googleapis.com/avif-comparison/index.html> AVIF >>>>> engineers ran comparing AVIF to JPEG, WebP and JPEG-XL. The tests provide >>>>> all the necessary code, test sets and parameters to reproduce the test >>>>> results. Developers are welcome to ask questions and submit feedback to >>>>> avif-f...@googlegroups.com. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Apologies for the delay in providing this information. We wanted to >>>>> be sure that everyone would be able to duplicate and verify these results >>>>> for themselves before posting. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Friday, November 11, 2022 at 7:58:28 AM UTC-8 Jim Bankoski wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Helping the web to evolve is challenging, and it requires us to make >>>>>> difficult choices. We've also heard from our browser and device partners >>>>>> that every additional format adds costs (monetary or hardware), and >>>>>> we’re >>>>>> very much aware that these costs are borne by those outside of Google. >>>>>> When >>>>>> we evaluate new media formats, the first question we have to ask is >>>>>> whether >>>>>> the format works best for the web. With respect to new image formats >>>>>> such >>>>>> as JPEG XL, that means we have to look comprehensively at many factors: >>>>>> compression performance across a broad range of images; is the decoder >>>>>> fast, allowing for speedy rendering of smaller images; are there fast >>>>>> encoders, ideally with hardware support, that keep encoding costs >>>>>> reasonable for large users; can we optimize existing formats to meet any >>>>>> new use-cases, rather than adding support for an additional format; do >>>>>> other browsers and OSes support it? >>>>>> >>>>>> After weighing the data, we’ve decided to stop Chrome’s JPEG XL >>>>>> experiment and remove the code associated with the experiment. We'll >>>>>> work >>>>>> to publish data in the next couple of weeks. >>>>>> >>>>>> For those who want to use JPEG XL in Chrome, we believe a WebAssembly >>>>>> (Wasm) implementation is both performant and a great path forward. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Jim >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Monday, October 31, 2022 at 11:01:44 AM UTC-7 ash...@scirra.com >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Apologies for bringing back an old thread, but I thought it was >>>>>>> important to bring this up here. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I was surprised to read that Google are abandoning their efforts to >>>>>>> implement JPEG-XL: >>>>>>> https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=1178058#c84 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> As I understood it, JPEG-XL brought significant improvements over >>>>>>> existing image formats, and had a lot of interest in the technology >>>>>>> world. >>>>>>> However the reasons cited were apparently lack of benefits and lack of >>>>>>> interest. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I for one was interested in this format and the improvements it >>>>>>> would bring, and it seems many others are disappointed too. Can Google >>>>>>> explain how they came to this conclusion? How are they evaluating the >>>>>>> benefits and interest? Even this intent to prototype lists many of the >>>>>>> purported benefits and the extent of the interest, which makes this >>>>>>> reversal particularly hard to understand. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Tue, 30 Mar 2021 at 20:20, 'Moritz Firsching' via blink-dev < >>>>>>> blin...@chromium.org> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Contact emails >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> *de...@chromium.org, firs...@google.com, lo...@google.com, >>>>>>>> jy...@google.com*Explainer >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> *https://jpeg.org/jpegxl/ >>>>>>>> <https://jpeg.org/jpegxl/>http://ds.jpeg.org/whitepapers/jpeg-xl-whitepaper.pdf >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> <http://ds.jpeg.org/whitepapers/jpeg-xl-whitepaper.pdf>* >>>>>>>> Specification >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> *https://arxiv.org/abs/1908.03565 >>>>>>>> <https://arxiv.org/abs/1908.03565>*Summary >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> *JPEG XL is a new royalty-free image codec targeting the image >>>>>>>> quality as found on the web, providing about ~60% size savings when >>>>>>>> compared to original JPEG at the same perceptual quality, while >>>>>>>> supporting >>>>>>>> modern features like HDR, animation, alpha channel, lossless JPEG >>>>>>>> recompression, lossless and progressive modes. It is based on Google's >>>>>>>> PIK >>>>>>>> and Cloudinary's FUIF, and is in the final steps of standardization >>>>>>>> with >>>>>>>> ISO.This feature enables image/jxl decoding support in the blink >>>>>>>> renderer.*Blink >>>>>>>> component >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> *Blink>Image >>>>>>>> <https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/list?q=component:Blink%3EImage>* >>>>>>>> Motivation >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> *The main motivations for supporting JPEG XL in Chrome are: - The >>>>>>>> improvement in image quality vs image size, about 60% file size >>>>>>>> savings for >>>>>>>> the same visual quality (lossy compression of larger originals) when >>>>>>>> compared to JPEG at the qualities found on the web.- Improved visual >>>>>>>> latency by both smaller download sizes and supporting progressive >>>>>>>> decoding >>>>>>>> modes. - Support for HDR, animation and progressive all together in >>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>> same image codec. - Support for lossless-recompressed JPEGs - >>>>>>>> Ecosystem >>>>>>>> interest in JPEG XL: Several Google teams evaluated using JPEG XL for >>>>>>>> storing and delivering images, as well as outside of Google: including >>>>>>>> CDNs >>>>>>>> interest in storing lossless-recompressed JPEGs as JPEG XL and >>>>>>>> converting >>>>>>>> to JPEG on request is the browser doesn't support JXL. Facebook is >>>>>>>> exploring to use JPEG XL.*Initial public proposal >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> *Support decoding image/jxl behind a feature flag which is turned >>>>>>>> off by default on all platforms. *Search tags >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> *jxl <https://www.chromestatus.com/features#tags:jxl>*TAG review >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> *Not applicable for image decoders*TAG review status >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> *Not applicable*Risks >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Interoperability and Compatibility >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> *JPEG XL is in the final stage ISO standardization. Firefox has an >>>>>>>> open bug: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1539075 >>>>>>>> <https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1539075>Edge/Safari - no >>>>>>>> signals yetGecko: No signalWebKit: No signalWeb developers: high >>>>>>>> interest/many stars in the tracking bug, and there was a separate >>>>>>>> external >>>>>>>> crbug requesting the feature. A lot of interest on encode.su >>>>>>>> <http://encode.su>, r/jpegxl, <https://reddit.com/r/jpegxl/> discord >>>>>>>> <https://discord.com/channels/794206087879852103>, ...*Is this >>>>>>>> feature fully tested by web-platform-tests >>>>>>>> <https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src/+/master/docs/testing/web_platform_tests.md> >>>>>>>> ? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> *No, but planning to have complete tests before shipping. *Tracking >>>>>>>> bug >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> *https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=1178058 >>>>>>>> <https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=1178058>*Launch >>>>>>>> bug >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> *https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=1178040 >>>>>>>> <https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=1178040>*Link >>>>>>>> to entry on the Chrome Platform Status >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> https://www.chromestatus.com/feature/5188299478007808 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> This intent message was generated by Chrome Platform Status >>>>>>>> <https://www.chromestatus.com/>. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>>>>>>> Groups "blink-dev" group. >>>>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, >>>>>>>> send an email to blink-dev+...@chromium.org. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> To view this discussion on the web visit >>>>>>>> https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/CAMM7wxZEBJ8uf5OB%3DR1j2J6w5OF8OT1o%2B%2BN4t8G_brOo-Zgh_w%40mail.gmail.com >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> <https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/CAMM7wxZEBJ8uf5OB%3DR1j2J6w5OF8OT1o%2B%2BN4t8G_brOo-Zgh_w%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> >>>>>>>> . >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "blink-dev" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to blink-dev+unsubscr...@chromium.org. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/1e57a51d-4358-4b8c-b075-6d459d28096an%40chromium.org.
