-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 14
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Decode result looks "washed out" for 709-transfer-function JXL image #318
Comments
Huh, on Chromium they look same. On Firefox and Microsoft Photos they look different, how mysterious 🤔 |
this is an interesting image, magick reports gamma being different, it's not so different that it should cause an issue. I do wonder if this is just cjxl encoding the file in a way, that when it's decoded, it produces an ICC firefox and MS Photos doesn't like? A quick test supports this by ripping the ICC with magick, and applying it to another different PNG and getting the exact same results, with firefox color shifts, which chromium it doesnt. Gwenview has the same issue, MPV does not. darktable has all three images look washed out, however it also looks washed out when you apply the ICC to a seperate image which is weird. all images look fine on nomacs besides the JXL. |
exiftool says:
And for the original PNG:
Somehow the decoder makes more complex exif? |
I filed https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1911182. Let's see what our engineers find there. |
From a user report in saschanaz/jxl-winthumb#42.
With this JXL in zip, jxl-oxide-cli 0.8.1 (and 0.8.0 too) gives more washed out PNG.
The original PNG for this JXL:
The jxl-oxide-cli result (and actually also djxl result, yeah I probably have to report there too):
But given some viewers can render it as the original, it seems the issue could be some decoder option. Any idea what would be the issue?
This is the jxlinfo result:
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: