Earlier quoted context omitted.
and software radio stuff (sadly closed source and proprietary)
No one remembers LZEXE?
I certainly do.
BPG Image format
291–300 of 339 posts
Re: BPG Image format
#292Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
If you're curious how it works, untar http://bellard.org/bpg/libbpg-0.9.tar.gz and have a look at the post.js file.
I'm a designer, can't read code, and I'm trying to see if I should evangelize this at work. Its better if you could communicate with us non-technical folk and post an answer that the previous guy asked so that we other designers can also understand.
Re: BPG Image format
#293Few questions and thoughts on top of my head.
1. Why a Subset of HEVC Still Picture Profile? Why not just a use HEVC Picture instead?
2. Since JS sources are readable and being interpreted by VM ( Free Speech ), patents issues should not be a problem?
3. I am assuming the quality of BGP still has Lots and Lots improvement to be made? Since all H.265 encoder hasn't had the time to be tuned. ( Compared to x264 )
Re: BPG Image format
#294I 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/
jslinux cool. I tried it; running Emacs in it - https://twitter.com/jouborg/status/541252302309715968
Re: BPG Image format
#295Earlier quoted context omitted.
My guess is that the average mobile CPU speed makes decoding a minor time factor within the process of getting an image from server to the clients screen. If this is the case, then putting in a hardware decoder would be a needless expense.
I used to own the jpeg decoder at Mozilla, and this was certainly the case last time I looked at it. Even without SIMD, JPEG decoding is pretty cheap compared to most of the things the browser does. I certainly wasn't clamoring for someone to burn JPEG into silicon; I had other things keeping me up at night.
Strange: JPG is, when compressed, order of times smaller than uncompressed, so if the graphic card would accept the compressed image, the amount of used memory bandwidth can significantly decrease. I also believe that the graphic card can achieve more parallelisation and therefore handle much bigger JPG images, which we produce all the time with always bigger cameras.
I believe that some browsers actually keep in RAM all the images uncompressed, that can acually be the reason that makes the potential for optimizations less obvious.
Re: BPG Image format
#296Earlier quoted context omitted.
If we used a male model as a photographic test subject here, is that not the sexist objectification of males? Should we use an unattractive person or an animal instead? Are you going to attack the very notion of beauty or the fact that women are the "fairer sex"?
Sure, it could be objectification. It's pretty cut and dried in this case since the image was scanned from a magazine almost at random. The woman had no agency in the decision at all. Of course I'm going to attack that. Women are required to be beautiful or they are deemed worthless, or failures. So they put a lot of work into it from a fear of failure. Men can be beautiful too, especially to a woman's eye which you'…
>Women are required to be beautiful or they are deemed worthless, or failures.
I am truly sad for you if that is the case in your enviroment, but please, please do not generalise like that.
Re: BPG Image format
#297Impressive! Right now it requires a .js decoder, of 75kb. Assuming a fast C++ decoder instead,(possibly GPU accelerated if the decoding algorithm is well suited for it) and not using JS but what would be the rendering times? PNG are 4x bigger in his experiments, but interlaced PNG makes it more pleasant to users since it can be rendered progressively, can BPG benefit from such a thing? edit: Interlacing is also used…
> edit: Interlacing is also used in JPEG, isn't it ?
Yes, and contrary to PNG it actually makes files smaller.
Re: BPG Image format
#298The 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.
No you don't. You export it as png or whatever lossless format you can and your job here is pretty much done. Then technical guys you are working with convert it or write a script to convert it automatically on upload/download on their website or do whatever they need to do to get lossy image for whatever purposes.
Still, to become truly widespread you need to have support in all kinds of software out there, "everything you need is js plugin" is unreasonable optimism in my opinion. And, anyway, decoding using js isn't fast enough to be one and only solution forever, you need to get to have browser and other software support sooner or later, and for that you need 1 standardized format, not "whatever your plugin supports" as thread-starter suggests.
Re: BPG Image format
#299Earlier quoted context omitted.
What about introducing a new male equivalent image of Lena instead? This approach would at least balance things out while maintaining an image that has become a standard to compare things to for a long time. If I were someone working on image compression techniques I would probably have seen many many algorithms and their output using that image so when I see a new algorithm and a new Lena, I might look at the result…
>A 2012 paper on compressed sensing by Deanna Needell and Rachel Ward used a photo of the model Fabio Lanzoni as a test image to draw attention to this issue http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lenna#Controversy
Well, now that they have done it, straight males can "try on" what the oppression of Lena must feel like for women:
So everyone, please respond: Now that there's an "attractive" man in use for image testing, do you feel repulsed or discouraged that they would sexualize/objectify a man like that?
Do you feel pushed away from this industry?
Personally, this exercise is helping me see the light of the "are we treating women as delicate flowers who can't handle it" viewpoint. That image of Fabio is not threatening to me. Anyone who tries to tell me it is threaten, I think is being overly sensitive.
I'm utterly comfortable with people expressing this level of sexuality in the academic/public area. It's more akin to a "schoolkid crush" than to strip tease.
Re: BPG Image format
#300holy 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
That's far from indistinguishable to me. It's actually quite obvious that the BPG is blurring detail at that compression ratio. Edit: it's particularly noticeable in the wood grain patterns. Also, there's a soft grey dot to the left of the top of the lamp, 100px or so, that's entirely missing in the BPG. There are loads more examples... Edit again: the color saturation of the rug is pretty washed-out as well.
oops, I wasn't clear... it's meant as a giant background image, and the quality competes with really nasty jaggies that start appearing below ~100KB in size. Nobody will notice wood grain, a few missing details, etc.