Slashdot Mirror
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."
Because PNG is not lossy.
Wikipedia might care.
It is what it is.
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.
jh
If 2-6% is nothing, why not donate that percentage of your monthly salary to a good cause?
If Pandora's box is destined to be opened, *I* want to be the one to open it.
Anyone with a metered internet connection. Which is a depressingly large set of people, and signs are that it's going to get larger.
Because truecolor PNG images are much larger (usually at least twice as large, often closer to 4 times larger) than a properly encoded JPG counterpart, and you can't see the difference with your naked eye.
I read the internet for the articles.
Slightly better? For full color photographs, PNG is *much* bigger. Anyone that's serving up a lot of images to users cares because of bandwidth and storage costs.
I picked a random Wikipedia image:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/w...
The 1200x900 JPG is around 300KB. I converted to PNG with Gimp, and the resulting file was 1.7MB - almost 6 times larger. The Filesize after converting with Imagemagick was about the same.
For completeness, I took a 94MB full color 6496x4872 TIFF and converted it to PNG (compressionlevel=9) and got a 64MB file. Then compressed the same TIFF to JPG (Quality=90), and got a 7MB file.
The resistance to support WebP in Mozilla seems to be more politically motivated than technical.
ayottesoftware.com
Seems like a negligible improvement..
Yes WebP would be a better choice
It's a shame JPEG2000 debuted dead on arrival thanks to patent encumbrances. Creation of a superior open lossy image compression standard seems to have been left behind in favor of video. We have PNG and Theora, but nothing free that improves on jpeg.
Intellectual Property is a monopolistic, selfish, and defective concept. It is "tyranny over the mind of man"
A mess. Google refuses to have anything to do with APNG, preferring MNG instead. Firefox and Opera (up to v12) support APNG - but not MNG. Safari and IE supports neither.
General image software support is poor for both.
Agreed, it's a much better choice. I actually converted my entire image library to .webp, and I use Irfanview to view the images. The filesize savings were huge, with no visible reduction in quality.
Some examples:
4.5 MB JPG -> 109 KB webp
3.66 MB JPG -> 272 KB webp
3.36 MB JPG -> 371 KB webp
One folder of mixed JPGs and PNGs with a total of 169 MBs was converted to webp. the total size of all contents of the folder ("directory", whatever you want to call it) was 6.44 MBs. I was so impressed that I kept records of the results.
Not only would this be HUGE for sites like Wikipedia, but it also significantly decreased the amount of space that I was using in my cloud storage account.
Honestly for all of their PR about a better, more open web, all we really get is the same old politics and attempts at controlling what is and is not the standards. They still behave like children. Mozilla, Google, I'm not taking sides. They're both at fault.