Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 15

Thread: Mozilla Introduces New JPEG Encoding Library

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    14,658

    Default 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. #2
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Brasil
    Posts
    96

    Default

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

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    141

    Default

    Quote 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.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    41

    Default 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.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    France
    Posts
    566

    Default

    Quote 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.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    38

    Default

    Quote 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.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    51

    Default

    Quote 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.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    723

    Default

    Quote 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...

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Bathurst, NSW, Australia
    Posts
    47

    Default

    Quote 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.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    377

    Default

    Quote 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?

Posting Permissions

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