MozJPEG 3.0
calendar.perfplanet.com
MozJPEG 3.0
1–10 of 68 posts
Re: MozJPEG 3.0
#2would adding dithering support to the encoder help with gradient smoothness? i know it helps a lot with non-compressed formats in addition to shrinking filesize (though it may not be the case with jpeg compression). you can toy with the params [1] and see that even dropping target palette color count by >50%, still gets good results with a dithering kernel selected. repo here [2], btw.
Re: MozJPEG 3.0
#3Deringing (removing 'noise' around text and similar shapes in jpeg-compressed images) is awesome only in itself.
Hopefully this will find its way into image authoring tools.
Re: MozJPEG 3.0
#4Deringing (removing 'noise' around text and similar shapes in jpeg-compressed images) is awesome only in itself. Hopefully this will find its way into image authoring tools.
wonder if SmartDeblur would benefit from this, also: http://smartdeblur.net/gallery.html
Re: MozJPEG 3.0
#5JPEG is absolutely awesome and this is a valuable addition.
I was using the very first release of the source back in the stone age or so. We took passport photo images with a video camera at reasonably high resolution and then scaled them down and compressed with PCX to save on storage.
Quality after compression was absolutely terrible.
Then Tom Lane came along with libjpeg and suddenly the quality was better than what we could print!
Re: MozJPEG 3.0
#6Thanks so much for this piece of art.
I’ve been using JPEGMini trial [http://www.jpegmini.com/] for a while. How does this compare?
Re: MozJPEG 3.0
#7I have a feeling that nobody would really bother with WebP for its compression, but does JPG/PNG have:
* Lossy compression with alpha channels. * Efficient lossless compression of photo-like images. * Efficient compression of photo-like and diagram-like images in the same format (and in the same image, e.g. screenshots containing photos). * Good lossy compression of diagram-like images.
No.
Re: MozJPEG 3.0
#8I have a feeling that nobody would really bother with WebP for its compression, but does JPG/PNG have: * Lossy compression with alpha channels. * Efficient lossless compression of photo-like images. * Efficient compression of photo-like and diagram-like images in the same format (and in the same image, e.g. screenshots containing photos). * Good lossy compression of diagram-like images. No.
> nobody would really bother..
I did, last summer, converted all images (35K) on my NSFW hobby site (check profile) to WebP with no jpeg fallback or shabby javascript decoder (which don't work on very high res images), and haven't looked back.
On my journey to 1000ms-to-glass with a site like mine, I'm going to go with the format that gives me dramatic size savings, thank you Google.
That said, I can see how it benefits Firefox users not to be able to render WebP... sigh.
It would be helpful if 4chan followed my lead by at least allowing users to post WebP with something like mod_pagespeed running.
Re: MozJPEG 3.0
#9[deleted]
Re: MozJPEG 3.0
#10I have a feeling that nobody would really bother with WebP for its compression, but does JPG/PNG have: * Lossy compression with alpha channels. * Efficient lossless compression of photo-like images. * Efficient compression of photo-like and diagram-like images in the same format (and in the same image, e.g. screenshots containing photos). * Good lossy compression of diagram-like images. No.
• Currently you can use lossy PNG: http://pngmini.com/lossypng.html
• There's a draft for gracefully-degrading JPEG eXTensions that add all the features you want http://www.jpeg.org/jpegxt/index.html (by encoding classic JPEG + residual image hidden in JPEG metadata).
WebP is a bit of a hack: it has JPEG-like algorithm for photos (VP8) and a custom PNG-like algorithm for lossless. Technically it's not much different than having JPEG and PNG and using same filename extension for both.
JPEG 2000 and JPEG XR have truly scalable algorithm that can support lossy and lossless.