This affects all browsers and not just Chrome, as the media falsely reported it. Mozilla just rolled out a fix, and Brave is looking into it. This bug is likely related to the “zero-click” iOS 0day that was reported by Citizenlab last week.

  • zeus ⁧ ⁧ ∽↯∼
    link
    fedilink
    English
    0
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    That’s not how people use images. For an image format to be viable, you need your camera to support it, your gallery app/program to support it, the web sites you upload it to, the messaging platforms you share it through.

    yes. i agree. but that’s my exact point. if i make an image then upload it to the internet - the only software that’s involved is on my side (gimp, ps, whatever[1]) and the browser of the person viewing it. if it was supported in chromium, that’s automatically available in chrome, edge, vivaldi, brave, discord, element, spotify, whatever other chromium-embedded or electron apps you care to name. given the (unfortunate) prominence of electron-based programmes nowadays; that’s good enough for anyone who isn’t a professional, and they’re already fine. fuck it, it has the joint photographic experts group behind it - they’re quite a big name in photography

    Oh you’d be surprised… Gaming videos on Steam, screen recordings, porn clips by amateurs, or just random clips, the amount of low-res gifs with 10s of MB in size is crazy.

    meh, i haven’t seen any in the past ~5 years apart from ones specifically chosen for that 256 colour æsthetic; but i will believe you

    Sure, it’s shitty of Google to drop the support, but from experience I’m still unfortunately 100% sure it wouldn’t have gotten anywhere.

    Heck, Apple has been using HEIF for years and that’s a trillion dollar company with a huge market share, and you still get shitton of places where you can’t use it.

    it did get places. it has got places. again, it’s very new and is already well supported

    jpeg2k failed because of licencing and royalty issues[2]. heif hasn’t spread because of licencing and royalty issues. in my personal opinion, webp has licencing issues. png didn’t. jpeg (sort of) didn’t. jxl doesn’t.

    but anyways, this isn’t a pro-jxl comment; it’s an anti-webp comment. i used jxl as an example of why webp, and its adoption, is making the web worse even though it’s better than png from a technical standpoint


    1. or camera, you’re right; but i’m pretty sure that A) there are some cameras that support it already, and B) again, the jpe group have a considerable amount of sway so i’m sure they could persuade most camera manufacturers to support it ↩︎

    2. i mean, as well as the fact it didn’t really bring anything new to the table. but that’s a whole other point ↩︎

    • @WhoRoger@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      11 year ago

      if i make an image then upload it to the internet - the only software that’s involved is on my side (gimp, ps, whatever[^1]) and the browser of the person viewing it.

      It’s not. The web site you’re uploading to has to support it to allow you the upload in the first place, and to process it to make previews or lower-res versions for the web pages or apps.

      Well unless you’re uploading directly through ftp and share only the link, but again that’s not how people use pictures.

      Then if the person on the other side wants to download the picture, set it as wallpaper, send it through messenger, then those programs need to support it too.

      Heck now that I think about it, browser support isn’t even that critical because web sites can make media available in whatever format the browser supports. The important part is the backend, and local apps.

      meh, i haven’t seen any in the past ~5 years apart from ones specifically chosen for that 256 colour æsthetic; but i will believe you

      Do believe me, recently I’ve started converting those I want to keep to mp4 and I’m saving gigabytes.

      Recently I’ve had some debates here with people looking for better support for gifs, or how to encode them better or whatever, and I nudge them towards webp at least. Because simply, if the web site supports only jpg, png, gif and webp uploads, then I definitely prefer webp.

      it did get places. it has got places. again, it’s very new and is already well supported

      It’s not all that well supported in lots of those cases I mention. And where it did get, it only got because Apple has actually billions of devices out there and has the power to make the format default among them with one worldwide update. Yet it still has to convert to jpg when sharing elsewhere by default. That’s how huge the resistance is.

      It’s not all that new either, heif was introduced in 2017, webp even earlier and people still bitch that they can’t use it because their oddball app doesn’t support it.

      Meanwhile x265 has been a common thing for years, and every few years before there’s been a new generation of video codec, and nobody ever bats an eye when there’s a new update.

      jpeg2k failed because of licencing and royalty issues. heif hasn’t spread because of licencing and royalty issues

      I’m not advocating for these formats specifically (definitely not jpeg2000 haha), but I’m saying licences and royalties aren’t that super important when it comes to how supported something becomes.

      Hell look at Apple… Everything is proprietary.

      Or when it comes to formats, mp3 is still the most widely supported audio format (non-free), and DivX has been the most widely supported video format for much longer than anything else… Also non-free.

      jpe group have a considerable amount of sway so i’m sure they could persuade most camera manufacturers to support it

      Haha hardware camera makers are the slowest dinosaurs when it comes to technology. Took them fucking ages for some to support DNG raw format, and before h264 was already getting grey, most would record videos only in mjpeg.

      But it’s more about phone cameras anyway. And well with those we’ll only have webp and heif at most, so I guess we have to deal with that anyway.

      Maybe if Mozilla had not abandoned their FF OS, maybe that would’ve been a camera supporting jpegxl now.

      • zeus ⁧ ⁧ ∽↯∼
        link
        fedilink
        English
        11 year ago

        It’s not. The web site you’re uploading to has to support it to allow you the upload in the first place, and to process it to make previews or lower-res versions for the web pages or apps.

        alright yeah i guess. to be honest i was more talking about using images i’ve made on my own site, or publishers using an image format on their own websites. as for uploading to other sites it’s a complete mess: even tumblr doesn’t allow uploading webp, but it then automatically converts to webp which makes a horrible blurry mess

        Do believe me, recently I’ve started converting those I want to keep to mp4 and I’m saving gigabytes.

        i wasn’t being sarcastic! i do believe you. and yeah, i’d do the same

        It’s not all that well supported in lots of those cases I mention. And where it did get, it only got because Apple has actually billions of devices out there and has the power to make the format default among them with one worldwide update. Yet it still has to convert to jpg when sharing elsewhere by default. That’s how huge the resistance is.

        sorry, i was talking about jxl here. i agree heif hasn’t got anywhere; but that is, again, mostly due to licencing issues (unsurprisingly, given it’s apple)

        I’m not advocating for these formats specifically (definitely not jpeg2000 haha), but I’m saying licences and royalties aren’t that super important when it comes to how supported something becomes.

        Hell look at Apple… Everything is proprietary.

        yeah exactly - none of apple’s formats are supported outside of apple devices (and i guess itunes for windows)

        Or when it comes to formats, mp3 is still the most widely supported audio format (non-free), and DivX has been the most widely supported video format for much longer than anything else… Also non-free.

        that’s a fair point, and i can’t really explain that - i can only assume it’s big for the same reason as gif: it was good enough at the time, and got standardised by cds

        Haha hardware camera makers are the slowest dinosaurs when it comes to technology. Took them fucking ages for some to support DNG raw format, and before h264 was already getting grey, most would record videos only in mjpeg.

        really? now admittedly i don’t know much about cameras, but i’ve had a couple of filmmaker friends and i was under the impression raw was universally supported

        But it’s more about phone cameras anyway. And well with those we’ll only have webp and heif at most, so I guess we have to deal with that anyway.

        i’m not sure about that - even google camera doesn’t support webp (i mean, it’s called “web picture”, i think they see it as a web format primarily). i think phone cameras will continue to be solely jpg for a long time

        Maybe if Mozilla had not abandoned their FF OS, maybe that would’ve been a camera supporting jpegxl now.

        that’d be nice. i do wish mozilla wasn’t so catastrophically mismanaged all around

        • @WhoRoger@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          1
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Aye so bottom line, we’re stuck with what exists until new formats are forced upon everybody… ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

          Ed:

          was under the impression raw was universally supported

          Raw isn’t a format, it’s supposed to just be unaltered stream from the imager, so every camera model is unique in that regard. But DNG is a way to describe that data so it’s more readable to programs unfamiliar with the specific model. And well, some makers prefer to use their own proprietary models.

          Although it’s gotten better now that nobody buys standalone cameras so the makers can save money by not developing their own software.

          Ed2:

          none of apple’s formats are supported outside of apple devices (and i guess itunes for windows)

          Actually AAC is mostly Apple’s format and support for it is pretty great. I’m not super familiar with the details but it sounds like a similar situation as with webp.

          • zeus ⁧ ⁧ ∽↯∼
            link
            fedilink
            English
            -1
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Aye so bottom line, we’re stuck with what exists until new formats are forced upon everybody… ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

            yeah… :(

            Raw isn’t a format, it’s supposed to just be unaltered stream from the imager, so every camera model is unique in that regard. But DNG is a way to describe that data so it’s more readable to programs unfamiliar with the specific model. And well, some makers prefer to use their own proprietary models.

            ah fair enough, i didn’t know that

            Actually AAC is mostly Apple’s format and support for it is pretty great. I’m not super familiar with the details but it sounds like a similar situation as with webp.

            is it? i didn’t think any android players supported it apart from specifically apple music? and i’m pretty sure ms’ groove music couldn’t play them?

            • @WhoRoger@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              2
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              My bad here, I didn’t mean AAC, but ALAC (lossless) and other Apple’s own mp4 variants. Indeed not sure how’s the support in core Android, although I’d guess ALAC should be since it’s part of mp4 specification.

              I haven’t goofed around with it in a while, but some ~10 years ago when I was doing tech reviews I was looking into ALAC quite a bit and was surprised how nice it is, and apparently easy enough to implement that even lots of hardware devices supported it without even advertising it. Also 3rd party audiobook players can often deal with Apple’s audiobook DRM.

              Basically, Apple did surprisingly well with audio formats while also supporting some open formats (at least in hardware), so maybe that’s also a reason why I’m not so adamant about formats being 100% free from the start, as long as they get the codec ball rolling.

              But again it’s been 10 years since I was looking into this closely so I’m very fuzzy on the details.