Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

BPG Image format

bellard.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 339 posts

Re: BPG Image format

#201

Post by 1ris »

j2kun wrote: post #117
fnordfnordfnord wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>If you keep using a crop of your mother from her Playboy centerfold in the '70s as a test case for your algorithms, and you encourage other scientists to use the same picture, I might be a bit weirded out. And who wouldn't be! But that begs the question, is there a son or daughter of Lena Soderberg who is also a researcher or software engineer working in image compression algorithms? http://www.ee.cityu.edu.hk/~lmpo…

It does not "beg" any questions. It is still a question of context. Sexualizing women has nothing to do with image processing research.

>Sexualizing women has nothing to do with image processing research.

Good think they don't. Or how are they?

Re: BPG Image format

#202

Post by CamperBob2 »

frontsideair wrote: post #194
CamperBob2 wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Technically, the Lenna scan is indeed a bad reference image for numerous reasons, such as being blurry, heavily quantized, and composed of various shades of magenta and purple. Its value is more or less entirely nostalgic. 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 alre…

Thanks for clarifying. I can relate, since I would also defend anything if it was criticized by people I didn't like. ...no wait, I wouldn't.

Please don't put words in my mouth.

Re: BPG Image format

#203

Post by TD-Linux »

tambourine_man wrote: post #183
pslam wrote: post #148

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.

Some devices do have hardware JPEG decoding, however all mobile browsers do software JPEG decoding, often with the SIMD-accelerated libjpeg-turbo.

This is the software video decoder, by the way: https://github.com/brion/ogv.js

Re: BPG Image format

#204

Post by dingdingdang »

justinmayer wrote: post #197

After making a few needed tweaks to get libbpg to compile on Mac OS X, I used the compiled bpgenc binary to convert a test PNG to BPG format. I also converted the PNG to a JPEG for comparison purposes. You can see the results here: http://justinmayer.com/bpg-test/ Size of PNG before conversion: 186K Size after conversion to JPEG: 52K Size after conversion to BPG: 9K I took the liberty of submitting a Homebrew formula…

Would love to have not just the source file but also the output files posted if you can be bothered (im fine with png screenshots if you can't be arsed with actual js setup)

Re: BPG Image format

#205

Post by andreasvc »

malandrew wrote: post #184
andreasvc wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Almost none of the images from life magazine are studio images. The quality of the images vary greatly depending on the equipment used by the photo-journalist (often viewfinder Leicas not large format Hasselblads). 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…

I'm not convinced that other magazines couldn't have provided an image of similar quality, your arguments are rather hand-wavy. The notion that only a person from the same field can have a valid opinion on this is frankly ridiculous. It's plainly ad hominem / argument from authority. I don't care to convince you that we should change the practice of using this picture, but I'm curious to know why you would think we should NOT change it, given that there happen to be people who believe that we should.

Re: BPG Image format

#206

Post by Cieplak »

keeperofdakeys wrote: post #188
pslam wrote: post #148

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…

Does the javascript decoder download the images, or does the browser do that, then the javascript simply decode it? If it downloads them itself, then any parallel fetching by browsers will stop working. And if they are decoded by javascript, they will take (very slightly) longer, and both the encoded and decoded images need to be held in memory both in javascript, and the browser. Are they decoded to .bmp, .jpg, .png…

If you're curious how it works, untar http://bellard.org/bpg/libbpg-0.9.tar.gz and have a look at the post.js file.

Re: BPG Image format

#207

Post by frontsideair »

CamperBob2 wrote: post #202
frontsideair wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks for clarifying. I can relate, since I would also defend anything if it was criticized by people I didn't like. ...no wait, I wouldn't.

Please don't put words in my mouth.

> 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.

Is it putting words in someone's mouth if said words are their own, I wonder?

Re: BPG Image format

#208

Post by AshleysBrain »

This definitely looks like it compares favourably against both JPEG and PNG. The test doesn't directly compare against JPEG-2000, JPEG XR or WebP, but the results are more convincing than any examples I've seen for any other formats, and the Mozilla study showed HEVC's format did best on quality metrics.

I hope browser vendors take note. The patent issues are concerning, but if that can be worked around and a new spec designed, then we might just actually have a new image format for the web which really is better than what we've already got.

Re: BPG Image format

#209

Post by espadrine »

Daiz wrote: post #180
pgeorgi wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unless they changed their ways since h.264, it's probably a non-commercial license, even for tools or devices that suggest otherwise - like Final Cut Pro ( http://bemasc.net/wordpress/2010/02/02/no-you-cant-do-that-w... )

You can actually use HEVC for your content for free, even commercially. Royalties only get involved when distributing encoders & decoders. See page 7 here http://www.mpegla.com/main/programs/HEVC/Documents/HEVCweb.p...

Then surely you have an issue, don't you, if you bundle the decoder in JS?

Re: BPG Image format

#210

Post by SeyelentEco »

ChuckMcM wrote: post #91

Is there anything this guy can't do? Seriously. I have been wishing there was a JPEG equivalent with an alpha channel for like forever. That allows better compositing to arbitrary background images or patterns. Now the question is how long before browsers might support it natively.

Webp is has lossless and lossy support, and alpha channel. It's also much smaller than JPG and much better looking for small JPGs (like this one).

It's also supported natively on all newish (4.0+) Android devices and Chrome.

Post reply on HN