I'm reminded here that JPEG includes arithmetic encoding as part of the standard, but almost everyone uses Huffman because up until a couple years ago arithmetic encoding was patent-encumbered (the patents are expired now). Is anyone aware of a study like Mozilla's that considers JPEG-with-arithmetic-encoding? Or perhaps it does, and I failed to notice?<p>Most competing file formats seem to beat JPEG by only a slim margin, and what I've read on arithmetic encoding suggests it gives a ~5-10% gain, which would make that difference slimmer still, perhaps vanishing into the uncertainty of the usefulness of these quality benchmarks. Of course, there would be inertia to overcome to support it, as with a new format, but recompiling everyone's libjpeg is surely less work than adding support for whole new file formats. At the very least, it seems there might be a better effort/payoff ratio.
JPEG is absolutely awesome and this is a valuable addition.<p>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.<p>Quality after compression was absolutely terrible.<p>Then Tom Lane came along with libjpeg and suddenly the quality was better than what we could print!
beautiful! I had this file sitting on my desktop in compressed JPEG format. Text JPEGs are inherently bad and spit out ugly pics:<p>Original - 327kb - <a href="http://i.imgur.com/DTxTcLp.jpg" rel="nofollow">http://i.imgur.com/DTxTcLp.jpg</a><p>MozJPEG - 127kb - <a href="http://i.imgur.com/jVESWGS.jpg" rel="nofollow">http://i.imgur.com/jVESWGS.jpg</a><p>Stared at both side by side and really struggled to tell the difference. Great job!<p>Sorry WebP is great but I just don't see it getting adapted unless all browsers get on board as well as big software. JPEG is practically a household name, photographers, artists, insta-grammers,all know what it is and short of a mild revolution I just don't see it.
Deringing (removing 'noise' around text and similar shapes in jpeg-compressed images) is awesome only in itself.<p>Hopefully this will find its way into image authoring tools.
would adding dithering support to the encoder help with gradient smoothness? i know it helps a lot with non-compressed formats in addition to shrinking filesize (though it may not be the case with jpeg compression). you can toy with the params [1] and see that even dropping target palette color count by >50%, still gets good results with a dithering kernel selected. repo here [2], btw.<p>[1] <a href="http://o-0.me/RgbQuant/" rel="nofollow">http://o-0.me/RgbQuant/</a><p>[2] <a href="https://github.com/leeoniya/RgbQuant.js" rel="nofollow">https://github.com/leeoniya/RgbQuant.js</a>
Thanks so much for this piece of art.<p>I’ve been using JPEGMini trial [<a href="http://www.jpegmini.com/" rel="nofollow">http://www.jpegmini.com/</a>] for a while. How does this compare?
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)?
Since it's mentioned in the article: Does anyone have experience with lossy png tools?<p>I'm currently working on a project that needs alpha channels. I've been optimizing the images with pngcrush, which helped (interestingly, images put out with Adobe products where already pretty optimized, but I'm generating thumbnails locally with sips, where pngcrush often saves 60+%).<p>Still, for photographic images, file size often remains multiple times larger than what I'd expect from a high-quality JPEG.
This is totally awesome. Nothing bothers me more than seeing that awkward noise around images I export from Photoshop. Someone mentioned this already, but I hope this finds its way into the apps I use.<p>On a totally unrelated note, Denny, the dude that dropped the first comment on that post, is not a stand-up guy.
I have a feeling that nobody would really bother with WebP for its compression, but does JPG/PNG have:<p>* 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.<p>No.