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

                    Working...
                    X