BPG Image format • Hacker News Board

Re: BPG Image format

#231

Post by jml7c5 » Sat, Dec 06, 2014, 2:00 AM UTC

panic wrote: post #216

pdknsk wrote: post #17

I notice the container has no ICC profile support. Trivial do add as an extension tag, but should definitely be in the first spec IMO. And if I read this correctly, extension tags are hardcoded as numbers, rather than using a tag name. I don't think that's a good idea.

Is there a situation where 14-bit sRGB isn't enough? There are a lot of weird color matching issues on the web caused by inconsistent application of ICC profiles to PNG images by different browsers / platforms.

An image that is in Adobe RGB, for example.

Re: BPG Image format

#232

Post by frontsideair » Sat, Dec 06, 2014, 2:11 AM UTC

ANTSANTS wrote: post #228

frontsideair wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

He's not saying "I'm disagreeing with you because I dislike you," he's saying "I dislike you because I disagree with your ridiculous PC policemanship and the fact that a lot of people actually take it seriously."

> I'm disagreeing with you because I dislike you > I dislike you because...

Are you even aware you made my exact point?

Re: BPG Image format

#233

Post by asah » Sat, Dec 06, 2014, 2:12 AM UTC

holy crap, check this out: http://img1.buyersbestfriend.com/mkg/snackspage/images/bpg.h...

186,967 ==> 29,872 and indistinguishable, 6.25:1

(and pls tell me if it breaks on your browser - I want to push this live!!!)

adam

Re: BPG Image format

#234

Post by threeseed » Sat, Dec 06, 2014, 2:18 AM UTC

SeyelentEco wrote: post #210

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.

Unfortunately given the relationship between Google and Apple and also between Web* and H.26* there is little chance of it going anywhere since without iOS you have nothing.

Re: BPG Image format

#235

Post by brunobowden » Sat, Dec 06, 2014, 2:19 AM UTC

asah wrote: post #233

holy crap, check this out: http://img1.buyersbestfriend.com/mkg/snackspage/images/bpg.h... 186,967 ==> 29,872 and indistinguishable, 6.25:1 (and pls tell me if it breaks on your browser - I want to push this live!!!) adam

Worked for me on Chrome, Safari and Firefox

Your issue if anything will be older browsers. Is there a way that it can detect browser side if something has failed?

Re: BPG Image format

#236

Post by pervycreeper » Sat, Dec 06, 2014, 2:19 AM UTC

mark-r wrote: post #18

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/

>I was ready to pass by this post with a yawn until I saw where it was coming from

Would this have been less interesting or valuable if it hadn't been made by a hacker celebrity?

Re: BPG Image format

#237

Post by ANTSANTS » Sat, Dec 06, 2014, 2:32 AM UTC

frontsideair wrote: post #232

ANTSANTS wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He's not saying "I'm disagreeing with you because I dislike you," he's saying "I dislike you because I disagree with your ridiculous PC policemanship and the fact that a lot of people actually take it seriously."

> I'm disagreeing with you because I dislike you > I dislike you because... Are you even aware you made my exact point?

I disagree! You have the cause and effect mixed up. It's normal to dislike certain groups of people you strongly disagree with. For example, I imagine we both dislike gay bashers pretty strongly.

You, on the other hand, were suggesting that CamperBob2 was arguing with you purely because he didn't like you, which would be pretty silly if it were true.

Re: BPG Image format

#238

Post by malandrew » Sat, Dec 06, 2014, 2:41 AM UTC

j2kun wrote: post #94

yason wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not everything is about gender, sexism, feminism, or chauvinism. There are very few things in the world that are not somehow associated with male vs. female in an objectively equal way. The Lena in question is just an image with a long tradition. Anyone can find and use a male image for his/her own image compression tests if s/he wants to. It's not a statement to use Lena instead.

Just because something is a tradition does not make it a good tradition, nor does it justify continuing the tradition.

True, but you still need to balance the relative merits of continuing versus discontinuing the tradition. There is a very real loss from discontinuing the tradition in question without first augmenting references for many of the algorithms that use Lena with other standard reference images. That's a real and immediate loss.

Try a different strategy: offer a better alternative that makes it so practitioners not only don't notices the loss of Lena in common usage, but instead overwhelmingly favor alternatives. Create a better product.

Re: BPG Image format

#239

Post by anigbrowl » Sat, Dec 06, 2014, 2:44 AM UTC

spot wrote: post #170

anigbrowl wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IT's not the most competitive in compression or speed terms as far as I know, but the resolution independence is a Big Deal to me. I first saw this technology about 20 years ago and I am still impressed by it because nothing else has delivered that for photographic images. It's like SVG for photography. At the time, encoding required a) an expensive license and (IIRC) b) an accelerator board if you intended to do any…

this is 100% BS, it's an illusion. you should read the Talk page of the wikipedia entry, where it's obvious there are some misinformed/deceptive folks took control of the page. See the comp.compression FAQ is a much better resource, as is the paper Brendt Wohlberg and Gerhard de Jager, "A review of the fractal image coding literature", IEEE Transactions on Image Processing, vol. 8, no. 12, pp. 1716--1729, Dec 1999 in…

I'm not talking about the Wikipedia page, which does not in any case make mild claims about the technology. I'm recounting my personal experience of using it and being impressed by the results.

Re: BPG Image format

#240

Post by ChrisFoster » Sat, Dec 06, 2014, 2:45 AM UTC

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…

I think your page has a bug - the "original png" seems to be encoded in jpg! (The usual jpg artifacts are very visible around the edges.) Thanks for posting the extra example, the bgp looks very good indeed.