Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Mozilla Introduces New JPEG Encoding Library

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

  • Mozilla Introduces New JPEG Encoding Library

    Phoronix: Mozilla Introduces New JPEG Encoding Library

    Mozilla has introduced a new open-source JPEG encoding library that it claims can measurably reduce the file-size of encoded images...

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

  • #2
    What about CPU usage?
    (being low it can really be very good with battery devices)

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by rudregues View Post
      What about CPU usage?
      (being low it can really be very good with battery devices)
      It's irrelevant. JPEG encoding and decoding functions are already hardware accelerated on mobile devices via ASICs and SIMD instruction sets so this wouldn't change anything for the worse or better once it's properly optimized.

      Comment


      • #4
        Webp

        All this begs the question... why dont they support webp?

        Upto 50% small filesize and with transparency. If firefox also had support, most of the major browser vendors would be covered.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by You- View Post
          All this begs the question... why dont they support webp?

          Upto 50% small filesize and with transparency. If firefox also had support, most of the major browser vendors would be covered.
          Lack of application support, probably.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by rudregues View Post
            What about CPU usage?
            (being low it can really be very good with battery devices)
            Encoding is something done relatively infrequently, and usually on the content *production* side of things, where more time for decreased size is very much worth it, due to hundreds of thousands or millions of downloads.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by You- View Post
              All this begs the question... why dont they support webp?

              Upto 50% small filesize and with transparency. If firefox also had support, most of the major browser vendors would be covered.
              Probably because nobody but google believes in any tangible advantage over jpeg, actually rather the opposite (tends to smooth details). And it rather sucks as Picture format without interlaced and lossless rotations.
              That "50% reduction without visible degradation" google claimed can just as easily archieved by dialing down the quality option of jpeg - it just showed that many pictures on the web are compressed with high settings (which at some point dont give noteable improvements) or bad encoders.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by rudregues View Post
                What about CPU usage?
                (being low it can really be very good with battery devices)
                Note, it says "encoding" library, not "decoding". It's a trick for optimising the creation of JPEG files, not for displaying them. As such, economy of CPU and battery usage isn't really a top concern...

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Calinou View Post
                  Lack of application support, probably.
                  At least WebP is seeing more support than Microsoft's JPEG-XR. I added support for it to my own graphics application using their Open Source libjxr. The library isn't the easiest thing to use, but finding example images on the Internet was quite difficult! It looks like a total failure.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by phoronix View Post
                    the Mozilla work is based upon libjpeg-turbo
                    So this is a fork, right? If so: What's the reason for it? Why not contribute to libjpeg-turbo instead?

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by TAXI View Post
                      So this is a fork, right? If so: What's the reason for it? Why not contribute to libjpeg-turbo instead?
                      Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe libjpeg/libjpeg-turbo are sort of an all-in-one kinda thing with both decoding and encoding, Mozilla is only looking at encoding here, and it's not really a fork in the traditional sense. It's more like, taking a knife and cutting a piece of cake in half, and THEN using a fork to eat it, if you get what I mean.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Calinou View Post
                        Lack of application support, probably.
                        It's already supported in Photoshop and a large number of image editors, and can be processed in real time by a number of programming languages. Mozilla has a problem with WebP, but application support isn't it.

                        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WebP#Support

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Shouldn't Mozilla focus on decoding functions, not encoding?

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by caligula View Post
                            Shouldn't Mozilla focus on decoding functions, not encoding?
                            They already have that, and there's plenty of good JPEG decoders, they're a dime a dozen. Encoders are severely lacking though, and since WebP is trying to potentially dethrone JPEG, Mozilla figures they can simply improve the existing staple that is JPEG rather than support WebP. WebP can seem like it's great if it compares to bad JPEG encoders and settings used for them, but I think it's completely feasible to get something close enough to or better than WebP with a great encoder for JPEG.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by psychoticmeow View Post
                              It's already supported in Photoshop and a large number of image editors, and can be processed in real time by a number of programming languages. Mozilla has a problem with WebP, but application support isn't it.

                              http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WebP#Support
                              It's actually quite a bit of it. What happens when, say, mom takes a photo from Facebook and e-mails it to grandma but neither can figure out how to open it outside of their browser since it's WebP? They're not going to have all these external sort of plugins and third-party crap to enable the support for it installed nor are they going to know that's what they need. In the page you linked, in many of the descriptions it lists them as requiring an external plugin or something.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X