181–190 of 339 posts
How many "better JPEGs" have been created now, without significantly displacing JPEG's market share?
Indeed. Without out-of-the-box support in the major image editors like Photoshop and all the popular web browsers, I don't think we'll see JPEG overtaken any time soon.
Wow, I didn't even know there were open-source HEVC encoders. I thought there were patent issues. Now I'm off to re-encode my bluray collection!
The big story here is this introduces a new image file format without requiring you to upgrade a browser or download a plugin . Those aren't PNGs of representative images you're looking at - that's BPG decoding happening in your browser. So we don't like HVEC due to patent worries? Fine, we can swap in another format and use the same technique. We don't have an I-frame format for Daala that's finalized yet? Fine, we…
Still, it is quite amazing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So the only real contention people have here is the source publication of the original image, right? Because AFAICT, the cropped image (as it's always been used in practice) is nor more or less offensive that kodim04.png from the kodak set. Furthermore, why does the licensing matter? Near as I can tell every use of Lena, except for by a for-profit company, constitutes fair use. The image, every time I've seen it, has…
I find the argument that there would be a lack of high-quality images in 1973 utterly unconvincing. Life magazine or national geographic could have been used. It was just a historical accident, and contrary to what you claim, I do not believe there is a pressing reason to keep using the exact same image, it's merely a relatively unquestioned tradition.
National Geographic has been printed in a format that is approximately have the surface area as Playboy. From a cursory search of NG covers from 1973, the images aren't the same quality as those achievable with studio photography equipment available at the time.
> It was just a historical accident, and contrary to what you claim, I do not believe there is a pressing reason to keep using the exact same image, it's merely a relatively unquestioned tradition.
Many people (including myself) do not believe there is a pressing reason to not keep using the exact same image. I do think there is good reason to publish research with additional test images including the Kodak set linked to above. "Dilution" of the image would achieve the same goal some are advocating here.
Lastly, I find the following heuristic valuable:
function hasValidOpinion(person) {
return person.hasPublishedContentInField();
}
The easiest way to break from this tradition is to produce novel research in the area of image compression and publish papers without using this image as a reference. Feel free to publish a paper without it if this matters so much. In the meantime, it's not really fair to be out there criticizing those who are from the comfort of your armchair.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
By the same logic, it would be perfectly okay use goatse image if the guy permitted it, right? If the ability to represent the goatse image were a critical part of the evaluation process for a compression algorithm, then yes. However, we evolved to recognize and respond to subtle features in human faces, not human colons. So, no, goatse would not be an appropriate reference image.
If her face is the only face that is critical to the image compression analysis, yes, you are completely right. I have a hard time understanding the knee jerk reaction to the change and the willingness to maintain the status quo. We have nothing to lose if the image is swapped with one that is less ostracizing --which is something Mozilla did in the past. Why defend it?
So it wouldn't be worth defending at all, if it weren't being attacked on grounds I strongly disagree with, by people who I believe shouldn't gain any more influence over our culture than they already have.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sure. This picture was painted by Dali, inspired by a Scientific American article about the minimum number of pixels needed to recognize an image. He was making an artistic statement that has a direct connection to Fourier analysis (and if you read the context article that image came from you might know this). This is a painting whose context is "fine art" (i.e. you can have tasteful nudity). That is a different cont…
>This picture was painted by Dali, inspired by a Scientific American article about the minimum number of pixels needed to recognize an image. He was making an artistic statement that has a direct connection to Fourier analysis Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah... The Lena image contains a nice mixture of detail, flat regions, shading, and texture that do a good job of testing various image processing algorithms…
Yes, there is such a thing as tasteful nudity, and pornography is generally not. This is why our society allows children into art museums but not strip clubs. What is so hard to understand about this? Context is subjective, but there are agreed-upon standards for professionalism. Just because the standard was different fifty years ago does not make it a good idea today. If you can't think of any "traditions" from fifty years ago that professional scientists unanimously agree are wrong today, then you're quite ignorant.
> Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah...
Clearly I am the one failing to articulate things.
The big story here is this introduces a new image file format without requiring you to upgrade a browser or download a plugin . Those aren't PNGs of representative images you're looking at - that's BPG decoding happening in your browser. So we don't like HVEC due to patent worries? Fine, we can swap in another format and use the same technique. We don't have an I-frame format for Daala that's finalized yet? Fine, we…
Isn't there hardware support for JPEG decoding on most mobile devices? If so, I imagine it couldn't compete performance and battery life wise. I remember Mozilla did a software video decoder once in JavaScript. Still, it is quite amazing.
the demos reminded me what browsing on dialup was like. in fact dialup was better cause at least the decoding/loading was progressive/incremental, which doesnt seem to be the case here. i assume it's just the way the decoder is implemented?
The big story here is this introduces a new image file format without requiring you to upgrade a browser or download a plugin . Those aren't PNGs of representative images you're looking at - that's BPG decoding happening in your browser. So we don't like HVEC due to patent worries? Fine, we can swap in another format and use the same technique. We don't have an I-frame format for Daala that's finalized yet? Fine, we…
If you needed this for any page that loaded lots of images, all of the above would significantly increase page-load time, and memory usage. Especially on a mobile browser, it would use more resources (hence more battery), than otherwise. So personally I wouldn't like to see this be the future. Maybe just as a fall back, but detection for that might be a little hard.
I was ready to pass by this post with a yawn until I saw where it was coming from: Fabrice Bellard. He's no doubt an absolute freakin' genius. And if anybody knows about image conversion, it's him. Even the things he does just for fun are impressive. Have you ever booted up Linux inside your browser? http://bellard.org/jslinux/
Having alpha channel support, 14 bits and better compression would be lovely.
I appreciate the historical tradition of using the photo of beautiful young Lena Söderberg as a test image, but it's time to move on. It's fun for us hetero males, but like it or not, this sends a message to young women that they aren't welcome in this field. I wish Fabrice Bellard would have left them out of the demo set. Having said that, all those demo photos do look good. I was wondering how we were going to see…
It's actually a very good point when you take into consideration the origin of the image. From [1]: “Lena Söderberg […] appeared as a Playmate in the November 1972 issue of Playboy magazine” and it is referring to this particular photo. Article in cyrilic (Russian?) [2] shows what the uncropped version look like. Putting things in context is important. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lena_S%C3%B6derberg [2] http://…
All this is incredibly unimportant. You just made me waste 60 seconds of my life on a pointless thing and i want them back.