Originally posted by DebianLinuxero
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Mozjpeg 2.0 Improves JPEG Encoding
Collapse
X
-
-
Originally posted by Kivada View PostShow 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.
As somebody who's never seen a 4k monitor, but owns a 1080p 21' monitor, is there even a reason for 8K? It seems like 4K would be perfect up to ~32', at which point the screen size is just unruly. I think most people would just go for dual-27' monitors or something.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Daktyl198 View Post[offtopic]
As somebody who's never seen a 4k monitor, but owns a 1080p 21' monitor, is there even a reason for 8K? It seems like 4K would be perfect up to ~32', at which point the screen size is just unruly. I think most people would just go for dual-27' monitors or something.
I would think that even for Jumbotrons it doesn't make sense having something above 8k. But you never know, new uses could be found. They were saying 640kilobytes should be enough for everybody a while back.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Kivada View PostShow me the cellphone or point and shoot camera that spits out anything other then JPEG files.
Originally posted by DebianLinuxero View PostWhy 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 = 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.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Nouser View PostPNG 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.
HDR format, eh? You should know that even JPG has enough dynamic range for HDR photos.. you probably mean RAW formats.
Comment
-
Originally posted by caligula View PostActually PNG is great for photographs. It can store larger color depth than JPG, support color profiles and even alpha channel. The problem is the file size, but if you need a lossless format for editing, it's not bad.
Originally posted by caligula View PostHDR format, eh? You should know that even JPG has enough dynamic range for HDR photos.. you probably mean RAW formats.
You probably mean tone-mapped HDR photos, which is just a technique to make photos appear to have a big dynamic range by using optical tricks distorting the actual colors.
Comment
-
Just a few nitpicks on the comments so far.
JPEG/WebP support lossless compression too, and will beat PNG on natural images (photos).
If you look closer, JPEG is also using Huffman coding like PNG. The difference to PNG is that the image is transformed into frequency domain before compression. This can allow for better compression (depending on the image) and better quantization (lossy compression).
You can apply quantization to PNG too (make it lossy), as stated above already, but the artifacts are much more visible than with JPEG frequency domain quantization, especially when quantization coefficients can be tuned for human perception. The same trick is used in audio compression.
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by log0 View PostJPEG/WebP support lossless compression too, and will beat PNG on natural images (photos).
It is similar for WebP - it uses a different approach for lossy and lossless.
Originally posted by log0 View PostYou can apply quantization to PNG too (make it lossy), as stated above already, but the artifacts are much more visible than with JPEG frequency domain quantization, especially when quantization coefficients can be tuned for human perception. The same trick is used in audio compression.
Comment
Comment