Looks like the JS decoder is compiled using emscripten, very nice.
BPG Image format
271–280 of 339 posts
Re: BPG Image format
#272This worked awesome on my MacBook and my PC, but I am getting some massive rendering errors in Safari on my iPad 3: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/18855215/bpg.PNG
Re: BPG Image format
#273holy 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
Breaking in Safari on my iPad 3 running iOS 7: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/18855215/bpg.PNG
Re: BPG Image format
#274The big story here is this introduces a new image file format without requiring you to upgrade a browser or download a plugin . Those aren't PNGs of representative images you're looking at - that's BPG decoding happening in your browser. So we don't like HVEC due to patent worries? Fine, we can swap in another format and use the same technique. We don't have an I-frame format for Daala that's finalized yet? Fine, we…
Does the javascript decoder download the images, or does the browser do that, then the javascript simply decode it? If it downloads them itself, then any parallel fetching by browsers will stop working. And if they are decoded by javascript, they will take (very slightly) longer, and both the encoded and decoded images need to be held in memory both in javascript, and the browser. Are they decoded to .bmp, .jpg, .png…
A quick glance makes it look like it grabs it by url in the decoder so I think it is doing another download. That said it's probably not too bad since the browser should cache the image also.
Re: BPG Image format
#275Very out of topic but, is lena.jpg still acceptable? I mean, tech industry is getting better at inclusion but come on, are we still using that crop from Playboy?
[deleted]
Re: BPG Image format
#276Earlier 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…
> 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.
I'm having trouble understanding what this means, concretely. Do you think it would be a bad thing if computer science became less of a boys club? Or do you not believe that is why people dislike the picture? Who is it exactly that has too much power over "our" culture -- women? Politically correct killjoys?
Re: BPG Image format
#277Earlier quoted context omitted.
Unless they changed their ways since h.264, it's probably a non-commercial license, even for tools or devices that suggest otherwise - like Final Cut Pro ( http://bemasc.net/wordpress/2010/02/02/no-you-cant-do-that-w... )
You can actually use HEVC for your content for free, even commercially. Royalties only get involved when distributing encoders & decoders. See page 7 here http://www.mpegla.com/main/programs/HEVC/Documents/HEVCweb.p...
Yes, the content - that means unlike h.264 licensing there's no separate license for streaming (page 7 of http://www.mpegla.com/main/programs/avc/Documents/avcweb.pdf)
But with h.264, _codec_ licensing is for non-commercial (and internal business) use only (page 8).
There's no clear statement that HEVC licensing is for any and all purposes, and their use of the term "End user" in MPEG-LA's (non-binding) public material across patent pools is quite inconsistent, so it may mean only non-commercial users.
Given that it's MPEG-LA that we're talking about here, and their history, I assume there will be nasty surprises unless there's hard evidence that there aren't.
Re: BPG Image format
#278I 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?
This guys hacks become the mainstream implementation. Ever used qemu or ffmpeg?
Re: BPG Image format
#279The big story here is this introduces a new image file format without requiring you to upgrade a browser or download a plugin . Those aren't PNGs of representative images you're looking at - that's BPG decoding happening in your browser. So we don't like HVEC due to patent worries? Fine, we can swap in another format and use the same technique. We don't have an I-frame format for Daala that's finalized yet? Fine, we…
If you want Designers to start using this, then we need a photoshop plugin, an illustrator plugin, a Sketch plugin, a pixelmator plugin. Make it easier for us to export images as a .BGP. If the images are truly smaller without affecting the current user experience of users using mostly modern web browsers, then we're more likely to pick up on using this.
The server could encode it. So the designer can still upload a known format.
The only problem I see for now is SEO. Ofcourse the title and alt attributes can give some context but the images wont get indexed
Re: BPG Image format
#280I've tried it with a picture of mine. The encoding process was painfully slow, but I guess that does not concern the end-user much. The file size went from 1.2M in jepg to 164K in bpg, and the decoding was fairly fast. After turning the image back into PNG the quality seemed OK but that's tough to assess objectively.
The coolest thing is this javascript program that can decode and display the pictures on-the-fly.
Definitely an image format that could save storage space and bandwith, IMHO.