JPEG XL

I have tried this myself, here is an example: https://spider-mar.io/dpreview/piscine.html

if you are using Chrome on Windows with HDR enabled system-wide, the image should be displayed in HDR

at the moment, there aren’t a lot of tools to do that, though

I used DaVinci Resolve Studio

which is arguably more video-oriented

Does chrome on Android support hdr images? 🤔

The sky looks weird though

Everything looks bad. Probably a chrome bug or something?

At home on no hdr display it looks good

Looks fine on sdr display?

Yes, android is not a computer to do tests :o I didn't know chrome android support jxl, maybe it not support hdr.

It looks good on my sdr monitor

It looks bad on a sdr phone too. (On chrome)

on an SDR monitor, there are a few things (e.g. the bottom part of the sky) that clip sooner than they should

there is apparently no tone mapping at the moment

but yes, what is below the clipping point seems to look fine

<@263309374775230465> how do you enable jxl support on chrome nightly android?

That picture is avif. Not a jxl.

<@456226577798135808> I made this using Adobe enhance demosaicing.

How did you get it? 😃

Aye aye captain

YARRRRRRR 🏴‍☠️

🤪

What is this object?

Idk really, maybe some kind of ventilation stuff?

But for sure it was *creatively* vandalised 😆

👀

...

Don't lose your head now!

(I wonder what other people are thinking now...)

/o\

Yes, this shot is also straight out of camera 🙂

Minimalistic.

What is it. Wire?

Photo from 2mp camera lol

Cat

Car https://res.cloudinary.com/mattgore/TMN000.jpg

How did you make that?

It's a ~~screenshot~~ in-game photograph of a game called TrackMania, no real life footage. :)

A photo of your screen?

I really doubt it's a photo

as in, taken with a camera pointed towards a screen

I assume it's an in-game photo or something like that

Yes, TrackMania allows to export in-game videos and photos directly.

So it is a screenshot.

No, the original file is 5160x2160 pixels and I don't have such a large screen. The correct name would probably be "render".

Ah it renders the game scene at a higher res than what it would do for the screen? That's a nice feature

Yes, also with up to 400 samples per pixel, accurate motion blur and depth of field, and ray-traced reflections. <:BlobYay:806132268186861619> 😄

<@!794205442175402004> here's the original: https://res.cloudinary.com/mattgore/TMN000.jpg The `q_auto:eco` JPG reencode doesn't change the appearance that much: https://res.cloudinary.com/jon/image/fetch/q_auto:eco,f_jpg/https://res.cloudinary.com/mattgore/TMN000.jpg But the `q_auto:eco` JXL reencode is darker in the shadows: https://res.cloudinary.com/jon/image/fetch/q_auto:eco,f_jxl/https://res.cloudinary.com/mattgore/TMN000.jpg Maybe borked color profile handling or something? Same thing happens with JXL on "normal" `q_auto` setting.

oh definitely some TF shenanigans

might be one of those "gamma vs srgb" cases

hope it's not a cjxl bug 😛

The original was JPG, not PNG...

ah, then no

might be a Cloudinary bug, or a cjxl bug - does it happen if you do a manual encode?

Manual encode works flawlessly, it's a Cloudinary bug then

Either way Jon should know

I'll have to check

On my phone I cannot see the difference in firefox nightly, but I cannot really flip there

hm on my laptop I see a difference in chrome canary and no difference in firefox nightly

so likely a cloudinary bug then, I suppose

hm

when I do `convert TMN000.jpg tmp.png; cjxl tmp.png foo.jxl` I also get the darkening in the shadows

(this is effectively what cloudinary does at the moment)

**Chrome:** ✅ original ✅ `q_auto:eco,f_jpg` ❌ `q_auto:eco,f_jxl` ❌ `q_100,f_png/q_auto:eco,f_jxl` **Firefox:** ✅ original ✅ `q_auto:eco,f_jpg` ✅ `q_auto:eco,f_jxl` ❌ `q_100,f_png/q_auto:eco,f_jxl`

does Chrome interpret untagged JPEG in a different way than ImageMagick?

I'm a bit confused where the bug is now

Me too

<@456226577798135808> How much are you willing to pay for the 5160x2160 lossless original? 😁 Btw, I can rerender it at a higher resolution for a small additional fee. 🤑

https://tenor.com/view/6m-rain-wallstreet-make-it-rain-gif-8203989

so as far as I can tell, when you do `cjxl TMN000.jpg -j out1.jxl` and you do `convert TMN000.jpg tmp.png; cjxl tmp.png out2.jxl`, out1.jxl looks OK and out2.jxl looks a bit too dark in the shadows

so not sure what is going on here - but one of Chrome, ImageMagick and cjxl must be doing something incorrect

<@!693227044061839360> would probably be interested...

firefox ignores ICC in JXL files AFAIU so it could be that

The JXL looks fine (ignoring the loss of detail) inside XnView.

Does XnView interpret colorspace correctly though?

I don't know but why should it be any different to sRGB.

Well something is not quite sRGB it seems

The JPEG on Cloudinary is and so was the original PNG.

ok so what happens is this

when I encode the jpeg directly, I get `transfer_function: 13` which is what I would expect, that's sRGB

when I first convert to png, then the jxl I get has ``` transfer_function: 65535 transfer_function gamma: 0.454550 ```

the png ImageMagick produces has ``` png:gAMA: gamma=0.45455 (See Gamma, above) png:sRGB: intent=0 (Perceptual Intent) ```

looks like both Chrome and cjxl interpret that PNG as using the gamma=0.45455 transfer curve, not the sRGB one

I think both Chrome and cjxl are wrong though, and ImageMagick is right here

```When the sRGB chunk is present, applications that recognize it and are capable of color management [ICC] must ignore the gAMA and cHRM chunks and use the sRGB chunk instead.```

https://pmt.sourceforge.io/specs/png-1.2-pdg-h20.html#C.sRGB

it looks like Chrome and cjxl are instead ignoring the sRGB chunk and letting the gAMA chunk take precedence

<@!768090355546587137> <@!604964375924834314> any opinions?

one workaround is to use an explicit sRGB(-ish) ICC profile, like this: https://res.cloudinary.com/jon/image/fetch/q_auto:eco,f_jxl,cs_tinysrgb/https://res.cloudinary.com/mattgore/TMN000.jpg

I think we should fix the bug in Chrome and cjxl though - if there's an sRGB chunk, it should override the gAMA chunk.

What are <@456226577798135808> and I getting for finding this bug?

A 🍪

I've got enough of them on the Internet...

https://tenor.com/view/high-five-top-gun-tom-cruise-gif-9817538

the above is just my analysis, maybe I missed something. Waiting for opinions from some others who know more about the subtleties of colorspace signaling in PNG than me, like <@!768090355546587137>, <@!604964375924834314> and maybe <@!826537092669767691> ?

having a look at the PNGs generated by djxl from out1.jxl and out2.jxl, one moment

Nice, so the bounty depends on the severity of the bug.

for what it’s worth, out1.png and out2.png seem to have the same lightness in FastStone

(I used jxlinfo to check what we have in the jxl header)

(things may also depend on ImageMagick version, I used whatever is default in current unstable debian)

out1.png has an sRGB chunk and no other color stuff

out2.png has iCCP and gAMA

and no sRGB

That's what <@!794205442175402004> said already.

he mentioned ignoring the sRGB chunk and using the gAMA chunk instead

but neither of the two pngs has both

or was it about the input tmp.png?

the tmp.png created by imagemagick has both

tmp.png has gAMA and cHRM

no sRGB

`identify -verbose` says it does but TweakPNG doesn’t list it

I see

that's weird

so it is an ImageMagick bug after all then

maybe ImageMagick assumes that if gAMA and cHRM have those values, it is actually sRGB?

(wrong assumption though, you could have something sRGB-like that does use just a simple gamma curve, and that would be the way to signal that)

seems like it

the ICC in out2.png is RGB_D65_SRG_Rel_g0.45455

so cjxl didn’t see an sRGB chunk either

ok, I will see if I can circumvent the bug somehow in cloudinary - adding an explicit sRGB chunk should do the trick

well, to be fair, likely the game did mean to make it sRGB xD

maybe we should consider an "imagemagick bug avoiding" thing in cjxl too, where PNG images that have gAMA and cHRM set to those specific values are interpreted as sRGB anyway (it's not quite correct but it's likely what was meant)

<@!693227044061839360> is there any particular reason why ImageMagick's png encode is setting `gAMA` and `cHRM` but not `sRGB`, when converting from untagged input? Might be worth fixing (unless there's some legacy reason or something why this cannot be fixed).

Gimp and imagemagick also do different color conversions. Just a reminder.

I remember the time when 'color management' didn't really exist yet — that is, it was done by the end-user by means of the Brightness and Contrast knobs on the CRT. Things are slowly getting better but there's still a lot of legacy stuff to deal with...

The sRGB chunk should win over all others. Although I think it's technically valid not to support it and then make a DIY profile from other chunks

Problem is the sRGB transfer function cannot be expressed using just gAMA

Sure, that's why this chunk exists

If you need extract curve without it, you need either ICC

or no label at all and hope for sRGB being the default

Nothing at all is supposed to mean sRGB, but firefox does not do that by default

IIRC it does "whatever you display colorspace is" by default, no?

For untagged images, yes

http://res.cloudinary.com/dofnr4zc9/image/upload/q_95/v1621930507/gvatk8y6xd4620rd2dyl.jpeg

Indeed sRGB should override gAMA: http://www.libpng.org/pub/png/spec/1.2/PNG-Chunks.html

😔 went on a photo run, thought my camera was in "RAW + Basic JPG" save mode so i could clean up pictures a bit later, turns out i was just in high-quality jpg mode rip

got a few neat pics at least regardless, though upload is super slow :p

~~also that filename, n i c e~~

uh ~~discord pls embed~~

*(after pasting a link wait for a few seconds and then press enter, maybe that'll do the trick)*

attempt 2

ok wh i'm not even uploading anything

why is my ping `dirt` rn

ok for some reason discord's failed to resend the link twice now so huh

`but it sends everything else just fine`

<:confusion:706650733692583987>

~~ah heck i give up i'll just upload it again :p~~

well that works i guess, wack

~~got some other pictures i would have liked more if i had actually been saving them as raw images like i thought i was cause i kinda messed up some stuff and was hoping i could fix it later on :p~~

Why can't every camera have a hardware version of Topaz DeNoise AI? Damn

:p

In-camera denoising is so stupid in terms of visual performance

*(except if you're shooting with a Lumia, of course)*

~~welp time to compress these `4+ MB JPEGs` to jxl and see what the difference is with default settings :p~~

nice :p

I wish I could denoise them with Topaz DeNoise, encode that with VarDCT (so it doesn't have to deal with noise), estimate the noise separately and then save that value to the file

You mean losslessly?

aye

~~*now do `-s 9` then*~~

oh no :p

`12 hours later`

*hey wait a sec*

<a:animated_thonk_collapse:755281372540567653>

(default speed on the former, -s 9 on the latter :p)

d 1?

Reversible JPEG re-encode

> `v0.3.2` WTF <:WTF:805391680538148936>

`git clone https://gitlab.com/wg1/jpeg-xl.git --recursive; cd jpeg-xl; mkdir build; cd build; cmake -DCMAKE_BUILD_TYPE=Release -DJPEGXL_ENABLE_DEVTOOLS=ON -DBUILD_TESTING=OFF ..; cmake --build . -- -j$(nproc)`

NOW.

~~oh yeah i should uh probably rebuild lmao~~

that's a very good point :P

You've got a one-liner above, just paste it into your shell and it'll compile basic tools (of course) AND some other ones, like `jxl_from_tree`.

aye, just didn't realize how long it's been since i rebuilt :p

Don't forget to `rm -rf jpeg-xl/` before doing that

aye, already done :p

alas, my internet is slow :p

And don't forget to copy your images somewhere else before `rm`'ing the directory...

👍

~~aaand remembering to only do -j8 on the build cause the last few times i accidentally did a full -j12 it completely hard-froze my system and i had to power cycle :p~~

aaand built, time to compare :p

aaaand on average they're a bit bigger now at defaults :p (lossless transcode, squirrel speed )

before/after rebuilding <:ChocolaTongueOut:770027862341189653>

either way, still a pretty nice improvement over the original <:EYES:644387947663196200>

I liked those rotating knobs in a CRT :). Having to press awkwardly placed buttons to access those settings deeply nested in the monitor menu discourages me from changing it

etna catania

italy

Are you sure that it's `-d 15`?

yeah that seems a bit too good for -d 15 - but perhaps the original was 50 MP or so

Yes. 16mp.

A 16mp photo with just 80kb size.

I'd recommend `--noise=1` at such low quality, I can see some banding...

Banding is due to an icc profile srgb 61966. Banding goes away with normal srgb

I'd recommend it anyway, it creates a pleasant illusion of details that VarDCT struggles to encode at high `-d`.

How does this photo look like with noise estimation?

No difference at this low quality / distance

Maybe because there was little noise to begin with...

Have you fixed that?

Yes. Looks fine after converting profiles.

Yes when we reach -d3, using --noise=1 is a good idea for pictures.

Rainbow?

3 rainbows

Nice

this photo is putting stress on my computer to decode

my computer is slow

jpeg xl uses too much ram

Image dimensions?

1600x1200

I feel you.

Well, not literally.

That would be weird.

😑

😐

I hope I didn't scare you away.

Nice.

https://tenor.com/view/janey-rage-painting-angry-modern-art-gif-5408953

Late night, 150$ phone photos

Night mode or normal mode?

Normal

Is it a Google pixel?

Or gcam port on different phone

Its a Xiaomi Redmi Note 10 with AOSM rom (which is pixel ROM) with Gcam

Nice

Motion cam (playstore , open-source ) also takes better photos sometimes.

Magic

You can see the flash timing on photo

ooh that's cool

<a:BlobRave:604714831827697675>

Beautiful

frogg

Wednesday froggo

My cat is dreaming of nyancat

https://c.tenor.com/zBc1XhcbTSoAAAAM/nyan-cat-rainbow.gif

Cute

give her a poptart?

just for the sugar..... with sugar..... and what else is in a poptart again?

not v good quality but

<:Poggers:805392625934663710>

HAHAHAH

It looks like a 🐸

it was cooler in the mountains than in the city (but not as much as the presence of snow would have you believe)

except in the ice cave (I liked this reference)

Trying to rescue and feed a red vented bulbul 🐥.

birb

Phone camera jpeg be like: <:banding:804346788982030337>

It looks bad. What camera app is that

Samsung <:kekw:808717074305122316>

Hello, i I covered a concert of Tibetan bowl 😄

The photo gallery it you like 😄 https://1drv.ms/u/s!Aui4LBt66-MmkUVG2K6_9aiqjW4t?e=RdRczo

JPEG --> converted to JXL --> I don't see any banding.

That image shows even more banding <:MonkaChrist:654081051513061388>

does it? I do see less when opening both in Chrome

i guess i could deblock the image

lol

you saved all

90% of image was blocking

this is epic

i'll sharpen the image

xnview doesn't recognize images

Rip, apparently mobile Discord bugs with webp files for me. It gave me a heavily compressed version, even when opened in browser :/

75.39KB...

ignore those bad images

just use original without deblocking the one you have in jpeg without lossless transcode so with jpeg quantization decoder

then do some random parameters like this

https://discord.com/channels/794206087879852103/794206170445119489/862356995201564672

and quality would be much better

which build newer than eddiezato one?

i see rectangular blocks more used in new heuristics than the new build you have

fucsia is better on new image

It's what Discord gives me on mobile when I open this file https://discord.com/channels/794206087879852103/803950138795622455/862308559554609162 . No idea what build it is (Discord is supposed to give the original upload, but now apparently applies extreme compression)

no you said 75.39 kb

so is lossy compressed

because original was 1.0 mb

do you have a windows build

i know that you recompressed in webplosless for viewing

reduction is 32% doing lossy vardct recompression

Discord compressed it. The "original" image was the image Matt sent (6.639KB), but Discord compressed it to hell when downloaded from mobile (mobile Discord has an issue for me that it doesn't give me the original image, but compresses it with an extreme amount)

<:Stonks:806137886726553651>

Burlats, France

i should get a scanner lol

Sunset in la douce France

I love how the sun is creating these rays in the sky

same. nice

ok

i know

<@!794205442175402004> Open Camera can shoot raw when you enable the Camera2 API

how do you enable that?

Some phones do support it, some don't

You enable this in the app (in this case Open Camera)

let me try that

whoa, Open Camera does produce a lot better results indeed

left is what the default camera app did

time of day is not identical but still

right is Open Camera with all the processing disabled

I don't think that in your case Open Camera will be the best idea

it still looks kind of blurry and noisy when doing the 48 MP thing, but at least it's not disgustingly unusable anymore

I've installed Open Camera on a 108 MP capable phone in a Xiaomi store

And Open Camera unfortunately couldn't access the 108 MP raw data

Just the 12 MP pixel binned output

Which obviously won't be as sharp as 108 MP original, even if you sharpen the raw file yourself

Unfortunately I think it's on purpose from Xiaomi's side

Just like I can't access raw data from 2x tele camera in my Galaxy Note 9

Stock, Open Camera, doesn't matter. 2x tele = JPEG.

I don't recall that you could dial down the enhancement, just like in Samsung's app. It's hard-coded.

ugh, it's the same: if I save DNG, I get a DNG file that is actually slightly smaller than the JPEG 🙂

the DNG is 3000x4000

the JPEG is 6000x8000

yep, there's basically nothing at all the default xiaomi app lets you configure in 48 MP mode

except flash or no flash

lol

Would be nice if all default camera apps would at least have settings for compression level, "enhancements", ISO, shutter speed and if possible aperture

Also, RAW option

it hasn't hdr i wouldn't consider

can raw files be better than hdr with a single shot

is a a single raw file contain 3 exposures

or raw file means one exposure

Those 108mp sensors normally run on binned 12mp mode. 108 divided 9

Does it use a 3x3 bayer pattern?

108 MPix phone that I was fiddling with? Yes, 108/(3x3)=12, it all checks out.

And your phone probably uses 2x2, because 48/(2x2)=12. Quick math 😉

I always thought it was weird that in cameras we count subpixels as pixels for the resolution, but in screens we don't.

You could claim a screen is using a 1x3 bayer pattern and it has 3x the width (or height, depending on how the subpixel layout)

https://www.sony-semicon.co.jp/e/products/IS/mobile/quad_bayer_coding.html

Found a dead bird on the terrace

rip

no clear sign of it being a cat gift

It was wounded in the neck on the other side, no idea what caused the wound though

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S0hFU2hrQ7E

???

went for a walk today, in part to try out my new ultra-wide lens; briefly passed by the office

also the river

and the lake

Nice, looks like being in a video game. 😄

a bit nostalgic, for all that I live 5 minutes away from it 😆

A test with a photograph I took to see if AVIF works in Discord.

So that's a no.

I though it might work when viewed in the web version of discord, but apparently not.

I do like the photo though

discord canary doesn't either and it runs on a version of chrome with avif support

I think discord whitelists MIMEtypes

it's by file extension too <:kekw:808717074305122316> opus files only work with an ogg extension if you upload it with an opus extension they don't embed

Does renaming a jxl to .jpg work in browser discord in a browser that has jxl enabled?

http://res.cloudinary.com/jon/f_jxl/sample.jpg

Not really, it seems - if it cannot make a preview, it's just a file you can download

Yeah, the previews are run through discord's own image resizer, so yeah, they probably don't work then.

https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/816072365698973726/884310489423810570/unknown.png

froge

Tested out a lossy JPEG-XL compression

mi 11 lite 5g compared freeDcam from 1 week ago and mi camera

mi camera f/1.7 1/25 ISO 1108

freeDcam jpg 64 mpx iso 1900 1/20 manual

I don't see any picture

it looks about the same i compared default app vs freeDcam

where's the pic <:Thonk:805904896879493180>

Wait, so some users don't see his uploads?

There isnt

see here https://discord.com/channels/794206087879852103/803950138795622455/883555693603463219

not all people post photography, some post links, also i don't post screenshots in photography

i don't see any links tho?

the way u worded that message was like you were trying to show a comparison between camera apps / camera settings on ur phone?

so idk i'm quite confused lol

that wasn't my point anyway lol

or were u just posting a comparison of the settings that the auto setting on the camera app used? wait but then why did u write manual? as in manual focus?

Manual iso and shutter speed

https://twitter.com/HenriHelvetica/status/1440136276057989123

https://lmg.gg/Pano

Saw a nice butterfly in my garden

and I, a nice spider

nice wing colors indeed

Have a chonky spider

I couldn't make a very good picture before it flew away, and in any case my phone camera is not very good

🦋

Butterfly DNA is the <#824000991891554375> of nature

~~Get Cloudinary to donate a good camera for "experiments with high quality picture compression" <a:DogeEvil:821038587176419381>~~

Compact description of what is basically a cellular automaton generating cool emergent patterns

I admit I prefer the butterfly 😛

it's this time of a year again

Is this the same (species of) spider posted just 2 photos above?

yup

That s quality of mi11 lite 5g with latest freedcam 64mpx jpg

It looks awful color are good but not enough

hmm it's blurry in general

GPL? Petroleum?

I like my gas like my software

Free

https://github.com/mirsadm/motioncam/issues/26

sample images of motioncam

you remember that?

Arun 😉 — Oggi alle 18:50 Just use someother cam. motioncam is not that good. It's demosaicking algorithm is very bad.

if you don't have dedicated gcam / tailored gcam for your device, better use anx cam. It takes better pictures.

https://camera.aeonax.com/

Interesting but im not gonna mod my phone

Well it's not available for your phone btw

the incredible thing is that my wallpaper wasn't even full photo but 60% of it

and the file size 40.33 kb

command was this

for %i in (D:\immagini\DACONVERTIRE\FB*.jpg) do cjxl -j -s 7 -d 4.586 %i %i.jxl

1080x1318 px

the photo is very big

obviously jpeg introduces loss

and it can improves for

https://discord.com/channels/794206087879852103/794206170445119489/895581986201141248

how many bpp is this photo <@!111445179587624960>

if you have wallpaper in 40 kb exact file size in avif encoded in october can you send some

or you can found wallpaper in 1366x678 or 1920x1080 even in unsplash

also twitter images photos are compressed well in

-q 81.712 -s 3 -I 0.713 --patches=0

there's no need of a new encoder

unless you have png

so you do for %i in (D:\Images\DACONVERTIRE\o\FB2\*.jpg) do cjxl -j -q 81.712 -s 3 -I 0.713 --patches=0 %i %i.jxl

but lossless jpg transcode is more efficient

I don't seem to work

there's something disabled

is definitely disabled

jpeg xl devs disabled it

even in latest build

What is disabled?

-I option in s 3

0.713 don't work

Well -I doesn't mean anything for lossy anyway

And for lossless it only means something when MA learning is done, which atm is only at effort 4 and up

ok

Miui camera app vs developed dng. Top vs bottom

It's one of those "NEED WIDER GAMUT" sunsets...

stock camera app seems to have sharpened it a ton

Yes. It's stupid

when not zoomed in it kinda does look more pleasing though? but looks terrible once zoomed in

and for the second picture the raw just wins hands down

the leaves look very artificial

and they are quite a bit darker

which phone is this specifically?

cuz the raws don't really look spectacular lol

the raw seems to have an excessive amount of smoothing though but it might just be cuz it's being compared to an extremely sharpened image

I didn't apply any sharpening. It's not the focus point btw.

the camera app seems to do very aggressive denoising and sharpening

the raw with just a much more subtle denoising/sharpening done would look great

the denoise and sharpen the app does is very excessive, it's almost doing a cartoonify effect

found them near forest.