It is supported by Adobe, included in Safari 17, is behind a flag in Firefox, and was behind a flag in Chrome too until they idiotically chose to remove it despite severe pushback from the community. My take is that it will be one of the most-popular image formats in the coming decade.
Nvidia can capture HDR screenshots in JXR format in supported games.
Adobe is already supporting the format, and many image editors / browsers are including it.
Finally, adding a WASM polyfil to your website would still yield many benefits, enough to outweigh not-100%-yet-support-by-browsers.
"Considering JXL has been endorsed by Facebook, Adobe, Intel and the Video Electronics Standards Association, The Guardian, Flickr and SmugMug, Shopify, the Krita Foundation, Serif Ltd, Gaia Sky, and many more, the market is most certainly interested. My current optimistic hope is that JXL takes off outside the web among professionals working with tools like the Adobe suite or alternatives, and camera manufacturers, smartphone OEMS, and others take notice & begin to think about JXL more seriously. The benefits cannot be ignored, and it is (in my opinion) the only image format that is in every way superior to JPEG & offers a concrete future for the many existing JPEGs on the Web & beyond."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetrachromacy#Tetrachromacy_in...
don't know if that would be reproducible on a regular RGB display, though
It wouldn't, and also not with standard camera sensors. The RGB subpixels correspond to the main wave length sensitivity of the three color cells in the eye. I think for tetrachromy there is a fourth cell for UV light with shorter wavelength than blue. There is no way to support this with our current tech stack.
as an example, apple's new HMD advertises things that simply can't possibly be true, so we probably won't be getting one any time soon. there's zero reason to upgrade from a simple hp reverb g2 when the only difference between two blurry headsets is that one of them costs four times more. we'd rather be conscious of this than try to fix it when no solution currently exists
this isn't saying displays for tetrachromy should have been the norm, as that's very wasteful on most people. but maybe displays for tetrachromy could have existed, somewhere, in some market, just like tech devices with placebo-level specs tend to exist in some market
The one study I've been able to read the full text for that involved determining spectral sensitivity of a woman with distinctly tetrachromatic vision[1] indicates that she had some cones with a peak in-between what most people would see as red and green,[2] and could consistently and accurately discriminate between colours that would appear identical to most people.[3] Unfortunately (and surprisingly, IMO), it doesn't discuss her subjective perception, i.e. does she perceive a true fourth primary colour?
It seems like a very, very rare gift, so IMO it's hard to even determine if the women who have it respond in similar ways, which would be a prerequisite for developing a display for them. Everyone else the authors tested who had a fourth type of cone couldn't actually discriminate between colours beyond someone with the typical three types. It would be interesting to see if they gained the discrimination ability by wearing glasses with extremely narrow bandpass filters for their cones' center wavelengths, like the ones that give men with red/green colourblindness the ability to distinguish between red and green.
[1] https://jov.arvojournals.org/article.aspx?articleid=2191517 - which cites a much earlier paper by two of the same authors (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8351822/) that also included the subject "cDa29". [2] Search for "Simulated cone fundamentals for cDa29" in the first paper linked in [1] [3] "one participant cDa29 [...] behaves as if she has access to an additional cone signal: she made no errors at any value of (R670 / (R670 + G546)) [...] and her response times not only are faster than those of other participants [...] but are roughly even across the stimulus space"
JPEG XL has HDR, is the best codec for photographic type content in all but extremely low file size, is the best codec for cartoon/chart style graphics, has a container that is enormously flexible (want to store a channel for depth or for object detection? You can do it).
I too want a magical flying unicorn, and maybe we can make one in the next 40 years, but in the mean time I will happily accept to be stuck with a magical jpegxl unicorn that can’t fly.
(note: losslessly preserving jpeg artifacts is still lossless if those artifacts were already present in the source material)
JPEG XL: How It Started, How It’s Going
https://cloudinary.com/blog/jpeg-xl-how-it-started-how-its-g...
This in no way contradicts your points about the forward opportunities of XL. For anyone that seeks the best backwards-compatibility for display use, there’s now XYB as well.
I can't remember, do the other encoders automatically change the chroma subsampling? XYB JPEG peaks pretty hard at specific bpp ranges depending on the subsampling.
Also, things like this make me wonder what other tasks would be better in XYB colorspace. BM3D, for instance, performs best in "opponent" color space: https://github.com/HomeOfVapourSynthEvolution/VapourSynth-BM...
