Slashdot Mirror
Mozilla Doubles Down on JPEG Encoding with mozjpeg 2.0
An anonymous reader writes: Mozilla today announced the release of mozjpeg version 2.0. The JPEG encoder is now capable of reducing the size of both baseline and progressive JPEGs by 5 percent on average (compared to those produced by the standard JPEG library libjpeg-turbo upon which mozjpeg is based). Mozilla today also revealed that Facebook is testing mozjpeg 2.0 to see whether it can be used to improve the compression of images on Facebook.com. The company has even donated $60,000 to contribute to the ongoing development of the technology.
and still no merge of the working WebP patch that was proposed four years ago because NIH.
5% of image bandwidth saved for someone like Facebook is millions of dollars in operating expense. Get a clue.
And yet, you're posting that on a web site which is mostly text.
I suspect a 5% decrease in size yields a very large percentage in bandwidth savings over time.
And there will always be people with slower links who will benefit from this.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
Correct, now is now.
But back then, now was then, and now was in the future. Of course, now 'then' was back then, and was the past. In the future, now will also be in the past, as will then. But by then, then will be now and then will be the present. The future present, not the current present.
So, soon, when now is later, the then now will be then, and now will still be in the past. But by then we won't have to worry, because it will be now, and I've already told you what happened.
Every now and then you need to remember which now, which then, how long until then is now, or how long ago then then was now.
Then you can say that you did know now what you knew then. Of course, when you say now then, it will be a different now than now, because it will be then.
It's all very complicated now, but by then it will make perfect sense.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
And when Facebook is saying that only 1.48% of their bandwidth is going towards images. That puts said reduction 5% reduction at a new percent of 1.41% at the expense of increased CPU time to transcode all existing images, which is itself not free. It is a marginal savings, even for an organization the size of Facebook. It certainly adds up over time, which is great, but when there is really great low hanging fruit like cutting the 37% of their bandwidth used on videos by 20-30% by getting HEVC or VP9 really working well (would then be 26% total), then that is a way to save significant money not just in Bandwidth but in Disk Space for retention as well.
Thirty four characters live here.
I should use a smaller font then, I think.
It's all very complicated now, but by then it will make perfect sense.
Colonel Sandurz: Try here. Stop.
Dark Helmet: What the hell am I looking at? When does this happen in the movie?
Colonel Sandurz: Now. You're looking at now, sir. Everything that happens now, is happening now.
Dark Helmet: What happened to then?
Colonel Sandurz: We passed then.
Dark Helmet: When?
Colonel Sandurz: Just now. We're at now now.
Dark Helmet: Go back to then.
Colonel Sandurz: When?
Dark Helmet: Now.
Colonel Sandurz: Now?
Dark Helmet: Now.
Colonel Sandurz: I can't.
Dark Helmet: Why?
Colonel Sandurz: We missed it.
Dark Helmet: When?
Colonel Sandurz: Just now.
Dark Helmet: When will then be now?
Colonel Sandurz: Soon.
Dark Helmet: How soon?
Totally, going from 12pt to 10pt is a 20% savings. Got for a 6pt font and you can save 50%.
Add that to the 5% savings in the jpegs, and that's a lot of extra porn you can download before you fill the tubes.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
...low hanging fruit like cutting the 37% of their bandwidth used on videos by 20-30% by getting HEVC or VP9 really working well
If they wanted to tackle the low-hanging fruit, why not stop auto-playing video at all?
That's only an issue for adblock+ users.
Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
I instead have a non-paranoid speculation that the FireFox people keep adding new buggy features faster than Google can swerve to avoid the bugs. So I use SeaMonkey instead.
#naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
And when Facebook is saying that only 1.48% of their bandwidth is going towards images. That puts said reduction 5% reduction at a new percent of 1.41% at the expense of increased CPU time to transcode all existing images, which is itself not free. It is a marginal savings, even for an organization the size of Facebook. It certainly adds up over time, which is great, but when there is really great low hanging fruit like cutting the 37% of their bandwidth used on videos by 20-30% by getting HEVC or VP9 really working well (would then be 26% total), then that is a way to save significant money not just in Bandwidth but in Disk Space for retention as well.
I deal with this sort of thing all day at work... you're not appreciating the scale of small adjustments.
For example: I recently got asked to approve an upgrade to internet explorer on an enterprise network.
I tested, and replied back that In one application, there was a 3 second delay in opening records. I declined approval and said this issue would have to get fixed before I could sign off on it.
Lots of managers had your attitude... it's only a 3 second delay!
So I had to present my reasoning in a meeting to explain:
We have approximately 1000 users that will be affected.
They each open, on average, 100 records per day.
They get paid an average of $15/hr
1000 users times 100 records = 100,000 records per day
Times 3 seconds = 300,000 seconds
Divided by 60 = 5000 minutes
Divided by 60 again = 83.33hrs
Times $15/hr = $1250
Not fixing that issue would cost the company roughly $1250 per day!
It's nearly a half a million dollar per year problem!
The fix is an increase in memory that would cost the company a 1 time charge of less than $20k.
Scale matters.
Any company that can save millions from something this small is so big that millions don't mean anything.
Luckily we don't care, because we're right.
No, you are wrong. This kind of analysis was debunked before I got to college 30 years ago.
Just because something on the computer takes more or less time doesn't mean the user isn't adapting and overlapping other behaviors during those 3 seconds. Do a controlled experiment and come back when you have real data.
If your analysis is so great why aren't you advocating moving to technologies that take less time to bring up a record? Or pre-loading the next record, or anything to save your oh-so precious 300 seconds per worker. I'm glad I don't work in your sweatshop.
I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
They just ripped this off from Pied Piper. Probably can't even handle 3D video properly.
aw crap, I have shamed myself.
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
Microsoft would have to fold if suddenly their browser didn't show images.
With Apple holding a monopoly on web browser engines on 36 percent of tablets, it arguably has room to play hardball with Facebook.