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

191–200 of 339 posts

Re: BPG Image format

#191

Post by higherpurpose »

reidrac wrote: post #10
userbinator wrote: post #7

Its purpose is to replace the JPEG image format when quality or file size is an issue. Some of the HEVC algorithms may be protected by patents in some countries There have been some patent disputes over JPEG, but I don't think replacing it with another possibly patented format is a good idea, even if it's technically superior in some ways.

"Most devices already include or will include hardware HEVC support, so we suggest to use it if patents are an issue." I don't know if that suggestion makes much sense, but you missed it in your quote.

"Most" is a huge overestimation. I don't think Haswell supports HEVC encoding. Qualcomm will only support it next year with the high-end Snapdragon 810, and Apple only recently supported it in the latest iOS devices.

But the vast majority of people right now don't have support for HEVC encoding and won't have for 5+ years.

Re: BPG Image format

#192

Post by [deleted] »

geofft wrote: post #85
ANTSANTS wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think people that pretend to be offended by things like this, unwittingly infantilizing the people that they are trying to support, do far more to discourage minorities from tech than pictures of women's faces.

I'm curious if you're basing this belief on actual information from the people in question, or just your intuition about what they probably think. Dianne O'Leary, distinguished university professor emerita in UMD's CS department, objects to it: https://www.cs.umd.edu/users/oleary/faculty/node8.html Sunny Bains, senior teaching fellow at UCL, also objects (see page 6): http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~chuck/lennapg/pcs_mirror/m…

[deleted]

Re: BPG Image format

#193

Post by j2kun »

CamperBob2 wrote: post #164
j2kun wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm sure they do, because I can point to them speaking up about it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lenna#Controversy I'm not saying all women are crippled by it, because they have to deal with such nonsense while walking down the street every day. But can't we as scientists strive to improve the status quo?

(Shrug) I can point to outraged people "speaking up" about everything from global warming to Jar-Jar Binks. It doesn't prove much, except that some people enjoy a good bout of outrage. The scientists in the article I linked, on the other hand, aren't speaking up about anything, because they're all dead.

You're implying that because the women you picked didn't speak up and just did their work, that somehow that is the model all women should follow (because Science, apparently). Yet you provide no evidence that they were not affected by attitudes toward women. Just because they did not speak up does not imply there were no negative effects of contemporary attitudes toward women. On the other hand, I have evidence that researchers are affected by it.

Re: BPG Image format

#194

Post by frontsideair »

CamperBob2 wrote: post #185
frontsideair wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If her face is the only face that is critical to the image compression analysis, yes, you are completely right. I have a hard time understanding the knee jerk reaction to the change and the willingness to maintain the status quo. We have nothing to lose if the image is swapped with one that is less ostracizing --which is something Mozilla did in the past. Why defend it?

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.

Re: BPG Image format

#195

Post by malandrew »

geofft wrote: post #100
ANTSANTS wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What do you know, there are other attractive women in those photosets, including at least one that appears to be wearing roughly as little as Lena. It's almost like our brains are wired for facial recognition and thus attractive faces are good test subjects for image compression algorithms or something.

Sounds like we agree, then -- there are enough other images with all the properties of the Lena image that make it useful for image-compression tests that there wasn't a scientific reason to use the Lena one in this analysis.

But none of those other images have been used as widely for as long to provide the same utility for comparison.

Getting the equivalent for all other papers involves getting the source code for all the other papers, and running those algorithms against these other images and making those images easily discoverable by someone who might come across these other papers (they are unlikely to contain links to your newly generated set).

What you're essentially advocating is reducing the available comparative evidence in an entire field of study because some people object to its origin, many of which don't even work in this field of study.

I'm sorry, but when you can't even admit that eliminating this image from use might have negative consequences from a utility point of view, it makes it very hard for others to accept your position.

Losing a common point of comparison in a field of study working on optimization problems is a step back. If you advocate for "diluting" the image by getting other reference images in common use by practitioners, then I can back that up. That approach actually balances the concerns of both sides and generally enriches the field (more common reference images can only serve to aid in objective and subjective comparison)

Re: BPG Image format

#197

Post by justinmayer »

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, so hopefully this will soon be a quick "brew install libbpg" away. (^_^)

https://github.com/Homebrew/homebrew/pull/34722

Re: BPG Image format

#198

Post by 1ris »

geofft wrote: post #64
gambiter wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not sure if you're trolling, but I have a spare minute... - If I post a picture of a cute kitten, does it mean I look at a cat as an object? That I will only under-appreciate all animals because I liked a photo of one? - If I post a picture of my mother or father, am I objectifying them? - What if I take a picture of a street performer who's doing some awesome thing and post it... am I reducing them to simply an obje…

This isn't just about having a picture. I'm not sure how you got that impression. It's about the context where it comes from and the repeated use of the picture in a scientific context. If you have a picture of your parents on your desk, that's great and I respect your love for your family. 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 enco…

>It's about the context where it comes

Why? It's the picture and not the context. If it wasn't posted here on HN, it wouldn't have seen it.

>If you have a picture of your parents on your desk, that's great and I respect your love for your family. 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.

Do you know on how many portrait photos of your co-workers they wear pants? Do you think it is important they do? Also get weirded out, that's your problem. Do you know how many people get weirded out of you because you browse HN?

Re: BPG Image format

#199

Post by malandrew »

geofft wrote: post #56
DanBC wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why don't you find a set of great test images (under suitable licence) then run those through the wide variety of image formats at different settings, and host it all on a website? (Put a few ads on it and you have nearly passive income, if the hosting isn't too much)

Did you read the article? There were _several_ great test images used in the Mozilla study under suitable licenses, and Bellard did test with some of those. The Lena picture here wasn't particularly scientifically useful, it was presumably just used out of a sense of tradition. (Mozilla didn't use it.) http://people.mozilla.org/~josh/lossy_compressed_image_study...

If it matters so much to you, take that image set and do exactly as DanBC suggested.

Create a site with all the different image formats out there with a larger test set.

Be willing to take matters into your own hands and change the norms and traditions in that field of study. The best way to accomplish that is by offering something better. I would say that a wiki with many test images for many algorithms is something better. If you do an good job, people will adopt your approach and tradition will change. Complaining on HN isn't going to change tradition.

Introducing new ideas usually is usually more successful long-term approach than "book burning" because you disagree with the content.

Re: BPG Image format

#200

Post by CamperBob2 »

j2kun wrote: post #193
CamperBob2 wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

(Shrug) I can point to outraged people "speaking up" about everything from global warming to Jar-Jar Binks. It doesn't prove much, except that some people enjoy a good bout of outrage. The scientists in the article I linked, on the other hand, aren't speaking up about anything, because they're all dead.

You're implying that because the women you picked didn't speak up and just did their work, that somehow that is the model all women should follow (because Science, apparently). Yet you provide no evidence that they were not affected by attitudes toward women. Just because they did not speak up does not imply there were no negative effects of contemporary attitudes toward women. On the other hand, I have evidence that…

Yet you provide no evidence that they were not affected by attitudes toward women.

The New York Times Magazine article is pretty long, it'll take you a few minutes to read it. I'll wait.

Short version: they suffered real discrimination, which you've diminished by comparing it to the use of Lenna.jpg in a graphics project.

Post reply on HN