So does it mean that Daala compression can be used to produce some new image format when it will be ready (similarly to how WebP was produced from VP8)?
MozJPEG 3.0
11–20 of 68 posts
Re: MozJPEG 3.0
#12would 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. [1] http://o-0.me/RgbQuant/ [2]…
Yes, some sort of deblocking in the decoder could go a long way, e.g.
http://johncostella.com/unblock/
This isn't something that can be done on the encoding side, so it's out of scope of MozJPEG.
I do think it may be worthwhile to spec a backwards-compatible extension for decoders that adds deblocking.
Re: MozJPEG 3.0
#13So does it mean that Daala compression can be used to produce some new image format when it will be ready (similarly to how WebP was produced from VP8)?
Yes, Daala is doing exactly that:
Re: MozJPEG 3.0
#14This is totally awesome. Nothing bothers me more than seeing that awkward noise around images I export from Photoshop. Someone mentioned this already, but I hope this finds its way into the apps I use.
On a totally unrelated note, Denny, the dude that dropped the first comment on that post, is not a stand-up guy.
Re: MozJPEG 3.0
#15beautiful! I had this file sitting on my desktop in compressed JPEG format. Text JPEGs are inherently bad and spit out ugly pics:
Original - 327kb - http://i.imgur.com/DTxTcLp.jpg
MozJPEG - 127kb - http://i.imgur.com/jVESWGS.jpg
Stared at both side by side and really struggled to tell the difference. Great job!
Sorry WebP is great but I just don't see it getting adapted unless all browsers get on board as well as big software. JPEG is practically a household name, photographers, artists, insta-grammers,all know what it is and short of a mild revolution I just don't see it.
Re: MozJPEG 3.0
#16beautiful! I had this file sitting on my desktop in compressed JPEG format. Text JPEGs are inherently bad and spit out ugly pics: Original - 327kb - http://i.imgur.com/DTxTcLp.jpg MozJPEG - 127kb - http://i.imgur.com/jVESWGS.jpg Stared at both side by side and really struggled to tell the difference. Great job! Sorry WebP is great but I just don't see it getting adapted unless all browsers get on board as well as big…
How can you not tell the difference? Look at the "Humor, empathy, resilience", the characters 'r'/'i'/'n' are damaged.
There are more in the fourth column.
Re: MozJPEG 3.0
#17[deleted]
Re: MozJPEG 3.0
#18beautiful! I had this file sitting on my desktop in compressed JPEG format. Text JPEGs are inherently bad and spit out ugly pics: Original - 327kb - http://i.imgur.com/DTxTcLp.jpg MozJPEG - 127kb - http://i.imgur.com/jVESWGS.jpg Stared at both side by side and really struggled to tell the difference. Great job! Sorry WebP is great but I just don't see it getting adapted unless all browsers get on board as well as big…
How can you not tell the difference? Look at the "Humor, empathy, resilience", the characters 'r'/'i'/'n' are damaged. There are more in the fourth column.
You're right, really big fail on those (and a t of integration, f from of), but otherwise it seems like a really good job.
Re: MozJPEG 3.0
#19[deleted]
Ladies and gentlemen, you are hereby urged NOT to download binaries from random links on the internet - this specific link may or may not be innocent (I have no idea). But how do you know it is not trojaned?
Re: MozJPEG 3.0
#20[deleted]
Ladies and gentlemen, you are hereby urged NOT to download binaries from random links on the internet - this specific link may or may not be innocent (I have no idea). But how do you know it is not trojaned?
It's OK, the MD5 sum is 951b878016159eadd8bfca08c3670038. And as we all know from downloading software on the Internet, if a checksum is posted it must be safe.