Ah, yeah, the current JPEG XL is not enough for the full RAW coverage. (I was talking more about per-channel color spaces.) There is indeed a reserved extra channel type for specific filter layouts among others, but its specification doesn't exist yet.
For some, possibly most, needs of using raw having yuv444, 14+ (or 16+) bits of precision and lossless or near-lossless (with strong guarantees of maximum error on individual pixels) compression is supposedly acceptable. I base this interpretation mostly on digital photography discussions I have seen on the internet. I am not a photographer myself.
(12 bits of component already requires adapting to the current lighting and can supposedly slow down professional photography.)
Comments
Ah, yeah, the current JPEG XL is not enough for the full RAW coverage. (I was talking more about per-channel color spaces.) There is indeed a reserved extra channel type for specific filter layouts among others, but its specification doesn't exist yet.
For some, possibly most, needs of using raw having yuv444, 14+ (or 16+) bits of precision and lossless or near-lossless (with strong guarantees of maximum error on individual pixels) compression is supposedly acceptable. I base this interpretation mostly on digital photography discussions I have seen on the internet. I am not a photographer myself.
(12 bits of component already requires adapting to the current lighting and can supposedly slow down professional photography.)