Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Mozjpeg 2.0 Improves JPEG Encoding

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Mozjpeg 2.0 Improves JPEG Encoding

    Phoronix: Mozjpeg 2.0 Improves JPEG Encoding

    Mozilla released version 2.0 today of Mozjpeg, its JPEG encoding library based on libjpeg-turbo...

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=MTc0MjE

  • #2
    Originally posted by mozilla
    Wed like to hear any constructive feedback you might have.
    sure
    give some of that facebook money to the guy that made libjpeg-turbo

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by gens View Post
      sure
      give some of that facebook money to the guy that made libjpeg-turbo
      on second thought, it's not that much money when talking about actual research

      Comment


      • #4
        They should just hire the guy behind libjpeg-turbo to work on their dev team. There are some improvements that need to be made to libjpeg-turbo to advance it a bit for future hardware and it has been rather stale in it's development since it's just a single guy working on it and he really must be paid for his work for it to continue advancing.

        Comment


        • #5
          Just curious : why not invest in PNG?

          Why is so important JPEG over more modern formats like PNG?

          Why camera and video-camera brands don't use it in its products if they could save royalty's money?

          Is so bad PNG?

          Please, educate me.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by DebianLinuxero View Post
            Why is so important JPEG over more modern formats like PNG?
            PNG and JPEG are designed for different purposes. In particular, JPEG uses lossy compression, which is generally fine for photos, where perfect accuracy of every pixel isn't critical. In contrast, PNG offers that perfect accuracy which is good for icons and UI elements - but when applied to a complex image such as a photo, tends to result in files 5-10 times as large...

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by DebianLinuxero View Post
              Why is so important JPEG over more modern formats like PNG?

              Why camera and video-camera brands don't use it in its products if they could save royalty's money?

              Is so bad PNG?

              Please, educate me.
              PNG is terrible for storing photographs since is lossless, and real photographs has tons of irregular details and noise that makes them difficult to compress without losing information. JPEG in the other hand is designed to make the loss of quality the less noticeable possible while compressing the contents as much as possible.

              Anyway, any serious camera already produces photographs in HDR format.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Delgarde View Post
                PNG and JPEG are designed for different purposes. In particular, JPEG uses lossy compression, which is generally fine for photos, where perfect accuracy of every pixel isn't critical. In contrast, PNG offers that perfect accuracy which is good for icons and UI elements - but when applied to a complex image such as a photo, tends to result in files 5-10 times as large...
                AFAIK, you can easily have a nicely compressed PNG, the difference is it loses bits by telling it: "Hey, you only have 51 different colours, you don't need all that extra information!" and it adjusts its bit-depth accordingly.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by DebianLinuxero View Post
                  Why camera and video-camera brands don't use it in its products if they could save royalty's money?
                  There is no royalty for using jpeg.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by profoundWHALE View Post
                    AFAIK, you can easily have a nicely compressed PNG, the difference is it loses bits by telling it: "Hey, you only have 51 different colours, you don't need all that extra information!" and it adjusts its bit-depth accordingly.
                    Well yes, PNG compresses too. But JPEG is a format that's specifically optimised for *photos*. It's not a general-purpose image format, but for the case it's designed for, it's hard to beat...

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by DebianLinuxero View Post
                      Why is so important JPEG over more modern formats like PNG?

                      Why camera and video-camera brands don't use it in its products if they could save royalty's money?

                      Is so bad PNG?

                      Please, educate me.
                      Show me the cellphone or point and shoot camera that spits out anything other then JPEG files. JPEG, like MP3 is never going away, both do their task adequately enough that there is no reason to move from them. The same isn't true yet for video files, but it will be probably a little bit after 8K video becomes common. At 8K there really isn't much reason to go higher resolution for any screen up to 100", past that you are looking at arena style screens like Jumbotrons.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Kivada View Post
                        Show me the cellphone or point and shoot camera that spits out anything other then JPEG files. JPEG, like MP3 is never going away, both do their task adequately enough that there is no reason to move from them. The same isn't true yet for video files, but it will be probably a little bit after 8K video becomes common. At 8K there really isn't much reason to go higher resolution for any screen up to 100", past that you are looking at arena style screens like Jumbotrons.
                        [offtopic]
                        As somebody who's never seen a 4k monitor, but owns a 1080p 21' monitor, is there even a reason for 8K? It seems like 4K would be perfect up to ~32', at which point the screen size is just unruly. I think most people would just go for dual-27' monitors or something.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Daktyl198 View Post
                          [offtopic]
                          As somebody who's never seen a 4k monitor, but owns a 1080p 21' monitor, is there even a reason for 8K? It seems like 4K would be perfect up to ~32', at which point the screen size is just unruly. I think most people would just go for dual-27' monitors or something.
                          I've had a 24" and a 27" monitors side-by-side, both 1080. I can tell you that I noticed the difference. 32" and maybe even 40" is ideal for 4k. As a comparison, for a 27" monitor with 1920x1080 resolution the pixel density amounts to 81.59 PPI (pixel per inch) while a 40" 3840x2160 resolution gives you 110.15 PPI. 32" for the same resolution would give 137.68 PPI and let's not get into 8k territory!

                          I would think that even for Jumbotrons it doesn't make sense having something above 8k. But you never know, new uses could be found. They were saying 640kilobytes should be enough for everybody a while back.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Kivada View Post
                            Show me the cellphone or point and shoot camera that spits out anything other then JPEG files.
                            There are actually point and shoot cameras that output raw.



                            Originally posted by DebianLinuxero View Post
                            Why is so important JPEG over more modern formats like PNG?

                            Why camera and video-camera brands don't use it in its products if they could save royalty's money?

                            Is so bad PNG?

                            Please, educate me.
                            JPEG: compromises photo quality in exchange for a smaller file (you can fit more photos in your memory card). This is good for cameras and even better for regular phones that have low storage space. It also obviously reduces storage bandwidth allowing for higher FPS when shooting continuous photos.

                            PNG = perfect (usually 24bpp) photo quality, much bigger file size. PNG is actually a bitmap compressed with zlib, therefore it will compress very well images that are low in fine grained detail such as comics or a screenshot of phoronix :P. It will however compress horribly photos because usually they have "random" noise.

                            RAW = many cameras can shoot in a "raw" format (this format can vary between camera brands) that can take full advantage of your camera's sensor by being able to store pixels exacly as they are present in the sensor (usually not RGB but something like this, and maybe rotated 45 too!) and with the bit resolution that fully exploits your camera's ADC (example: 14 bits per channel). These are sometimes also compressed (lossless!) however as you can imagine they will be huge! They are perfect for post-processing though.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Nouser View Post
                              PNG is terrible for storing photographs since is lossless, and real photographs has tons of irregular details and noise that makes them difficult to compress without losing information. JPEG in the other hand is designed to make the loss of quality the less noticeable possible while compressing the contents as much as possible.

                              Anyway, any serious camera already produces photographs in HDR format.
                              Actually PNG is great for photographs. It can store larger color depth than JPG, support color profiles and even alpha channel. The problem is the file size, but if you need a lossless format for editing, it's not bad. JPG as a lossy format is much better for distribution on web.

                              HDR format, eh? You should know that even JPG has enough dynamic range for HDR photos.. you probably mean RAW formats.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X