Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 40

Thread: Mozjpeg 2.0 Improves JPEG Encoding

Hybrid View

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    14,789

    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
    453

    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
    453

    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
    147

    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
    83

    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
    734

    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
    May 2013
    Posts
    40

    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.

  9. #9

    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.
    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.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    161

    Default

    Quote 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.



    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.
    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.

Posting Permissions

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