[coldtea]

>As a mirrorless photographer who wants to publish photos on the web that look like they came out of a mirrorless camera I want JPEG XL.

As if people would have the screen to properly watch them? Perhaps a handful of high-end laptop owners... Except if those are the intended audience.

>image codecs are definitely a userspace thing and as a Windows or Linux user I never wait for my OS to support an image format, I just install the codec and code away.

That's how you get half the apps supporting them (if you're lucky) and others not, and generally a hell of a time...

[sparker72678]

There are hundreds of millions of recent iPhones with outstanding OLED displays out there.

[coldtea]

Is your audience iPhone users? Or is it an progressive enhacement style thing?

(Btw, there's nothing about this that's specific to mirrorless and wouldn't also apply to a DSLR with big dynamic range).

[PaulHoule]

I'll go on the record and say that, unlike audio, where I'd be very concerned about the quality of speakers, I am not so concerned about the screen quality where my photographs are displayed. That is, even my Android Go device is "good enough" in that if you really need to see more detail you can zoom in.

A better comparison with audio would be the terrible quality of a 64 kbps Mp3 file which is going to sound awful on the cheapest bluetooth speakers or a $5000 set of speakers compared to 128 kbps Mp3 which sounds OK superficially but falls apart when compared to the source CD, or higher bit rates which are close to transparent. Many images for the web are highly compressed but nobody really notices.

My current boggle w/ screens is actually what to do with "high color gamut" screens like the one on my iPad. I am into red-cyan anaglyph images where the most important thing is getting separation between the left and right channels.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anaglyph_3D

The green in a high color gamut display is more saturated than the sRGB primary so when you ask for sRGB green you get some red and blue mixed in which is an absolute disaster for a stereogram.

The answer to this is to master a high color gamut image just for those devices and serve everyone else an sRGB. I will get around to it one day but it's been a higher priority for me to deal with the same problem in print, where the green on my printer is very saturated but also very dark and the color management system blends in some red to make it brighter. Turning off color management works but really I should be blending in some red into green areas of the left image because that will make the colors closer to the original and also help with stereo imaging by reducing the difference in brightness between the left and right channels.

[saltminer]

> Many images for the web are highly compressed but nobody really notices.

Or they do but they just assume that's the way things are. They don't know why an image that's been reposted from Facebook to Twitter to Instagram to Reddit to Imgur and back a dozen times has artifacting and color banding, and as long as they can still get the gist of the image, it doesn't matter to them. Besides, it's not like they can just ask the platform to magically fix the image, so they just don't think about it.

In many cases, the original high quality source has been lost to 404s and unpaid webhosting bills. The original is probably still on someone's hard drive, but it's unlikely to be remembered, much less surface again, so compressed messes are all that's left.

With JPEG XL, many of those compressed messes would be much closer to the original image due to its extremely strong generational loss resilience (see the webm attachment to [0]).

JPEG XL is a massive step forward for images on the web for a number of reasons, but it has especially massive benefits when it comes to preserving image quality across the web. And this is especially true when you consider that you can reversibly reencode the billions of existing JPEGs on people's drives and on the web as JPEG-XLs losslessly for 20+% space savings [0].

[0]: https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=117805...