Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 40

Thread: Mozjpeg 2.0 Improves JPEG Encoding

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    15,133

    Default 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. #2
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    547

    Default

    Quote 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

  3. #3
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    547

    Default

    Quote 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

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    153

    Default

    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.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    86

    Default 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.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    772

    Default

    Quote 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...

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    2

    Default

    Quote 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.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    413

    Default

    Quote 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.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    45

    Default

    Quote 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.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    772

    Default

    Quote 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...

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •