New Mozilla Encoder Improves JPEG Compression

jlp2097 writes "As reported by Heise, Mozilla has introduced a new JPEG encoder (German [Google-translated to English]) called mozjpeg. Mozjpeg promises to be a 'production-quality JPEG encoder that improves compression while maintaining compatibility with the vast majority of deployed decoders.' The Mozilla Research blog states that Mozjpeg is based on libjpeg-turbo with functionality added from jpgcrush. They claim an average of 2-6% of additional compression for files encoded with libjpeg and 10% additional compression for a sample of 1500 jpegs from Wikipedia — while maintaining the same image quality."

Comments

Re:Why aren't we using PNG?

[prefect42]

If you're talking about simple web graphics, then yes, PNG is often a good choice. Lossy compression simply makes more sense for photos, as the compression ratio is that much better. Always using PNG is idiotic, as is always using JPEG. JPEG2000 is not our saviour.

Compatible with all except what you want to use,

[Anonymous Coward]

is what I get from "compatible with the vast majority of decoders".

Sounds like it breaks something.

I wish they would focus on WebP instead

[Flammon]

The resistance to support WebP in Mozilla seems to be more politically motivated than technical.

Re:Why aren't we using PNG?

[Guspaz]

Since I started looking at web pages with JPEG images, the speed of my internet connection has increased by roughly 345,000%, the size of my hard disk by 200,000%. Why is a 300% increase in image size a concern?