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

Compressing Images with Neural Networks

mlumiste.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

1–10 of 75 posts

Re: Compressing Images with Neural Networks

#2

Post by esafak »

It is not going to take off if it is not significantly better, and has browser support. WebP took off thanks to Chrome, while JPEG2000 floundered. If not native browser support, maybe the codec could be shipped by WASM or something?

The interesting diagram to me is the last one, for computational cost, which shows the 10x penalty of the ML-based codecs.

Re: Compressing Images with Neural Networks

#3

Post by [deleted] »

esafak wrote: post #2

It is not going to take off if it is not significantly better, and has browser support. WebP took off thanks to Chrome, while JPEG2000 floundered. If not native browser support, maybe the codec could be shipped by WASM or something? The interesting diagram to me is the last one, for computational cost, which shows the 10x penalty of the ML-based codecs.

[deleted]

Re: Compressing Images with Neural Networks

#4

Post by dinkumthinkum »

esafak wrote: post #2

It is not going to take off if it is not significantly better, and has browser support. WebP took off thanks to Chrome, while JPEG2000 floundered. If not native browser support, maybe the codec could be shipped by WASM or something? The interesting diagram to me is the last one, for computational cost, which shows the 10x penalty of the ML-based codecs.

I think it is an interesting discussion, learning experience (no pun intended). I think this is more of a stop on a research project than a proposal; I could be wrong.

Re: Compressing Images with Neural Networks

#5

Post by dylan604 »

esafak wrote: post #2

It is not going to take off if it is not significantly better, and has browser support. WebP took off thanks to Chrome, while JPEG2000 floundered. If not native browser support, maybe the codec could be shipped by WASM or something? The interesting diagram to me is the last one, for computational cost, which shows the 10x penalty of the ML-based codecs.

Did JPEG2000 really flounder? If your concept of it being a consumer facing product as a direct replacement for JPEG, then I could see being unsuccessful in that respect. However, JPEG2000 has found its place in the professional side of things.

Re: Compressing Images with Neural Networks

#6

Post by esafak »

dylan604 wrote: post #5
esafak wrote: post #2

It is not going to take off if it is not significantly better, and has browser support. WebP took off thanks to Chrome, while JPEG2000 floundered. If not native browser support, maybe the codec could be shipped by WASM or something? The interesting diagram to me is the last one, for computational cost, which shows the 10x penalty of the ML-based codecs.

Did JPEG2000 really flounder? If your concept of it being a consumer facing product as a direct replacement for JPEG, then I could see being unsuccessful in that respect. However, JPEG2000 has found its place in the professional side of things.

Yes, I do mean broad- rather than niche adoption. I myself used J2K to archive film scans.

One problem is that without broad adoption, support even in niche cases is precarious; the ecosystem is smaller. That makes the codec not safe for archiving, only for distribution.

The strongest use case I see for this is streaming video, where the demand for compression is highest.

Re: Compressing Images with Neural Networks

#7

Post by dylan604 »

esafak wrote: post #6
dylan604 wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Did JPEG2000 really flounder? If your concept of it being a consumer facing product as a direct replacement for JPEG, then I could see being unsuccessful in that respect. However, JPEG2000 has found its place in the professional side of things.

Yes, I do mean broad- rather than niche adoption. I myself used J2K to archive film scans. One problem is that without broad adoption, support even in niche cases is precarious; the ecosystem is smaller. That makes the codec not safe for archiving, only for distribution. The strongest use case I see for this is streaming video, where the demand for compression is highest.

But that's like saying it's difficult to drive your Formula 1 car to work every day. It's not meant for that, so it's not the car's fault. It's a niche thing built to satisfy the requirements of a niche need. I would suggest this is "you're holding it wrong" type of situations that isn't laughable.

Re: Compressing Images with Neural Networks

#8

Post by geor9e »

esafak wrote: post #2

It is not going to take off if it is not significantly better, and has browser support. WebP took off thanks to Chrome, while JPEG2000 floundered. If not native browser support, maybe the codec could be shipped by WASM or something? The interesting diagram to me is the last one, for computational cost, which shows the 10x penalty of the ML-based codecs.

The thing about ML models is the penalty is a function of parameters and precision. It sounds like the researchers cranked them to max to try to get the very best compression. Maybe later they will take that same model, and flatten layers and quantize the weights to can get it running 100x faster and see how well it still compresses. I feel like neural networks have a lot of potential in compression. Their whole job is finding patterns.
Post reply on HN