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

MozJPEG 3.0

calendar.perfplanet.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 68 posts

Re: MozJPEG 3.0

#21

Post by nailer »

d0ugie wrote: post #8
Timmmmmm wrote: post #7

I 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 benef…

Your profile doesn't say anything.

Re: MozJPEG 3.0

#22

Post by [deleted] »

beagle3 wrote: post #19
[deleted] wrote: post #17

[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?

[deleted]

Re: MozJPEG 3.0

#23

Post by nitrogen »

[deleted] wrote: post #22
beagle3 wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

[deleted]

No virus software would ever detect a completely novel trojan without throwing a false positive on everything else.

How can we know the library wasn't altered to give remote code execution to a specially crafted image?

Re: MozJPEG 3.0

#24

Post by TillE »

[deleted] wrote: post #22
beagle3 wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

[deleted]

> If in doubt, use virustotal

Virus scanners are based on blacklists and some iffy heuristics. A clean result is not a guarantee of safety. Nearly any custom-built malware will slip by.

Windows is a huge pain for compiling software with dependencies, but I don't think MozJPEG has any. There are detailed build instructions for Windows included.

Re: MozJPEG 3.0

#25

Post by jacquesm »

jacquesm wrote: post #5

JPEG 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 wh…

Too late to edit: PCX is lossless, what we did was reduce the higher frequency bits in the images before using PCX in order to achieve a reasonable compression ratio, in effect making a lossy wrapper around PCX. It was a pretty crude way of making this work and JPEG was so much better that it is hard to believe we managed to sell our customers on the original version. I should see if I can dig up some of those old images, they're interesting historically.

Re: MozJPEG 3.0

#26

Post by mozillas »

d0ugie wrote: post #8
Timmmmmm wrote: post #7

I 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 benef…

4chan? They've only started to serve static content from a cookie less domain about a year ago http://chrishateswriting.com/post/68794699432/small-things-a.... When it's a known web performance technique for quite some time. Jeff Atwood did this at Stack Overflow in 2009 http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2009/08/a-few-speed-improvemen...

Re: MozJPEG 3.0

#27

Post by cabirum »

beagle3 wrote: post #19
[deleted] wrote: post #17

[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?

fine, links deleted. Now everyone has to waste time compiling it.

Re: MozJPEG 3.0

#28

Post by pwr22 »

mikhailt wrote: post #16
BorisMelnik wrote: post #15

beautiful! 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.

Hope they post a bug report, that doesn't look like an acceptable artefact to me

Re: MozJPEG 3.0

#29

Post by shmerl »

pornel wrote: post #13
shmerl wrote: post #11

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)?

Yes, Daala is doing exactly that: http://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/daala/update1.shtml

Thanks, that's a good overview. Hopefully something better than JPEG and WebP will come out of Daala still images.

Re: MozJPEG 3.0

#30

Post by ahoge »

BorisMelnik wrote: post #15

beautiful! 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…

That's a 1bit scan saved as JPEG. This should have been saved as 1bit PNG.

http://i.imgur.com/2wAcBdL.png (23.43 KB)

For nicer looking images, scan as grayscale and then use Photoshop's Image -> Adjustments -> Curves to turn everything almost-white to white and everything almost-black to black:

http://i.imgur.com/ktj8WkE.png

Alternatively, do a high-DPI 1bit scan, convert the document to 8bit, and then scale it down.

E.g. when you go from 1600 DPI to 100 DPI, you have 16x16 1bit pixels per 8bit pixel. The result will look smooth and crispy.

Post reply on HN