Slashdot Mirror
Bellard Creates New Image Format To Replace JPEG
An anonymous reader writes Fabrice Bellard (creator of FFMPEG, QEMU, JSLinux...) proposes a new image format that could replace JPEG : BPG. For the same quality, files are about half the size of their JPEG equivalents. He released libbpg (with source) as well as a JS decompressor, and set up a demo including the famous Lena image.
Because the new half-the-size JPEG files wouldn't work with old JPEG editors/viewers.
Same-origin policy is a nightmare for use with CDNs. I really wanted to use WebP for image handling for the application I'm working on, but Firefox adamantly refuses to merge a patch adding WebP support, and the JavaScript shim can only access the images if they're pulled of the same host. Images loaded from a CDN aren't accessible to the JS decoder.
The below site offers a better comparison interface than the Lena image link from the post. Drag your mouse across the image to see the effect:
http://xooyoozoo.github.io/yol...
It's worth noting the demo page is using JavaScript decoder to display the images; so it seems more than feasible to transition to the new format by first just having JavaScript decoder do the displaying on image-intensive sites. Still, I have to agree that especially with todays website-bloat and bandwidth "Another new format to pack your images even smaller!" isn't likely to fly. If the headline was much better quality, maybe, but it's not immediately clear to me that this is in any way better than just using higher quality/size JPEG. (Although as hinted, image-intensive sites who pay for their own bandwidth surely disagree!)
From Wikipedia
[24] http://www.mpegla.com/main/pro... (PDF)
Except that this test image has just a face and part of a shoulder, without any naughty bits. Not even erotic at all.
It's a good test image because it catches both distortions of detail and color damage to areas with a gentle gradient.
The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
Bandwidth still matters for mobile, so smaller images of the same quality are quite welcome on mobile sites and apps.
Given that the developing world is likely to get online via wireless solutions, bandwidth is going to matter for a lot of people for a long time to come.
Yesterday it worked; today it is not working; Windows is like that...
From the web site "BPG natively supports 8 to 14 bits per channel," which is a huge advantage. 8 bits is more of a straight-jacket than people realise and this offers a more portable way for people to pass around high bit-depth issues than camera raw files (proprietary things inside) or TIFF (a complex container format prone to cross-platform issues and poor compression).
JPEGs do support alpha channels, browsers just might not render them properly, but same goes with JPEGs with CMYK colorspace.
- Raynet --> .
Note that, according to the BPG web site, "An alpha channel is supported" so BPG has transparency.
How are we going to pronounce this thing? "Bee-Peg" I suppose since "Bee-Pee-Gee" doesn't roll off the tongue.
Looks good.
Barney Stinson settled the pronunciation many years ago on How I Met Your Mother: it's "bee-peg". Although this format probably won't be used exclusively for pictures of boobs.
But JPEG2000 was absolutely crawling with patents like maggots and worms writhing through the very core of its being. If that didn't put everyone off then I don't know what would? Certainly ruined my lunch.
DJVU was another contender but it just happened to be tagged on to a PDF-like docuemnt format and not widely known as just an image format.
Finally, anything that was not (properly) supported by Internet Explorer ten years ago was a dead duck. And Microsoft and Apple actively snub any open format if they can get away with (like Vorbis, WebM etc).
I know it's a good image for this purpose, it's just the origin that is really sexist. I don't mind, but I can understand how some of our female colleagues would find it inappropriate - ranging from immature to degrading, depending on where in their cycle they are right now...
I don't think we should compare BPG with JPEG, since it is very outdated. I wonder how it stacks against WebP - does it also support animation? Better compression? Licenses? Faster encoding/decoding? Browser manufacturer support? I'm all for making web more optimal, because you can never have "fast-enough" bandwidth, especially on a mobile device in bad connection area, but lets compare similar things.
Boosting the signal, for those who don't read ACs:
CORS (Cross-Origin Resource Sharing) is explicitly intended to support things like CDNs. It lets you make cross-domain XHRs (and access the responses), so the JavaScript-based decoder will work perfectly. It adds minimal additional bandwidth requirement over a standard cross-domain GET (one short extra header on request, a couple on response), is supported on all mainstream browsers, and is much more secure that stupid hacks like JSON-P (though that would work here too, if for some reason you wanted to live in last decade's terrible work-arounds for same-origin policy).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C...
There's no place I could be, since I've found Serenity...
Yes and yes, respectively. Though for the latter they probably won't bother.
This is just a terrible idea.
Not so much a "limit" as much as a complete showstopper.
I'm not sure how you can argue that after looking at the pictures in the link. It's clearly superior to JPG, because *everyone* can see the JPG artifacts. You only tend to notice the artifacts with BPG if you're comparing to a high quality picture or the original, or else looking really hard. It seems similar in principle to good audio compression that saves space by removing details the human ear is unlikely to miss.
It's too bad, because we really could have used this years ago while we were still on dialup - it would have saved us from seeing many beautiful images compressed all to hell. Yes, bandwidth matters to some degree nowadays, but not nearly as much as it used to. This format will, unfortunately, probably get little traction for one reason. JPG is here and it's "good enough". Audiophiles chafe at MP3 as well. Technically speaking, Ogg Vorbis was a superior format in nearly every way, but it's widely ignored in favor of MP3, which is "good enough". There's a small movement with FLAC and hi resolution sound, but most people can't hear or don't care about the difference. It will probably be the same for this.
Who knows... maybe I'll be proven wrong. It would help if the browser makers actually got behind it early and supported it fully - PNG suffered poor adoption because IE lagged so far behind with support for many years. Adobe, Corel, and other makers of image software will also need to offer native support as well. A format is worthless unless people are actually using it.
Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
JPEG2000 in Javascript
WebP in Javascript
Another WebP in Javascript
"Go to CNN [for a] spell-checked, fact-checked summary" -- CmdrTaco
The problem here is that H.265 and by extension BPG are heavily patent-encumbered. These are not just latent patents but patents that the H.265 contributors are using for a revenue stream.
Bellard suggests "just use the licensed hardware decoder you probably already have" but a) that doesn't make technical sense in lots of cases and b) most people don't, in fact, have such a thing currently and c) the encoding situation is even worse.
JPEG is (barring the possibility of some lossless mode that looks very little like JPEG except for a few metadata fields; but is technically part of the spec, not sure if we have one of those) indeed compressed; but it's lossy compression and lossy compression is an area where there is actually a reasonable amount of ongoing development.
This isn't to say that lossless compression is a trivial problem, or that there have been absolutely no improvements; but the 'by definition, it isn't lossless unless applying the decompression operation to the result of the compression operation produces something identical to the input' criterion makes it much easier to let the mathematicians and computer scientists work out the limits of the possible.
With lossy compression, there aren't any formal limits, which leaves the field much more open to solutions that rely on following the strong and weak points of human perception(visual in this case, auditory in other cases, visual/motion related in others), which leads to much greater complexity and diversity.
With 'mobile' there are really two considerations: One is the fact that 'mobile' (even if the fault is, in fact, with shitty backhaul) is going to be fairly slow in emerging markets. Two, relevant even in wealthy developed nations without asshole oligopoly telcos, is the fact that mobile devices are brutally power constrained, and RF chatter isn't exactly cheap in energy terms. The faster you get the data you need and shut down, or move to a slower, lower power mode, the radios, the happier your battery will be.
With mains power it matters less (electricity isn't free; but a few extra dollars a month is far less annoying than having your battery keel over dead at a bad time); but barring exciting breakthroughs in battery chemistry or design, basically all the savings are going to have to come from the device side.
Because it has a catchier name.
I mean, "JPEG 2000"? Seriously? That is -so- 20th century.
You and your friends who can get decent bandwidth, can afford decent smartphones and who can afford to just throw down an additional 2 euro a month for said bandwidth are, you may be surprised to hear, not representative of everyone. For example, the average internet connection speed in Algeria is about 0.94Mb/s. I'm pretty sure most people there are also not wandering around with the latest LTE enabled phone either.
If you're running a server for a big company (say, Google or FaceBook) and every image is only half as big, that means a huge reduction in the number of servers you need, power consumption, etc. Less congestion on the internet, more responsive servers, less wasted energy, etc...
I imagine you also have a car that guzzles up twice as much gas as other cars, but who cares since you can afford it?
I'm a videogame programmer, and Ogg Vorbis is actually a very popular format for game audio. It's not only license free, but it supports multichannel audio and seamless sample-accurate looping, which standard MP3 can't do. It was great for videogame companies, but did little to really promote the file format itself. So, sure, the fact that we have usable reference libraries means anyone can add support to their products, but I don't think that makes much of a difference, unfortunately.
Don't get me wrong - I think it's a great format (obviously technically superior) and would love to see it succeed. You say that if the format "becomes a standard implemented by browsers and major graphics tools, it will get adopted". Well, sure, but that's sort of the hard part, right?
Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
In this industry, there's no such thing as a "replacement," it's "just another competing format." None of the old formats ever dies, all we ever get is more new formats, all of which need to be supported, ultimately making everything more complicated. I'm not saying we shouldn't advance... but the belief that some new format you create will replace something instead of muddying the existing pool of formats is laughable. related xdcd. (yes, I know it's "standards" and not "formats," but the result is the same)
Stupid sexy Flanders.
You don't have to wait for someone to pop out of the woodworks. BPG is nothing but a still frame of HEVC video which is patented up the ass. Bellard and other open source video authors are accustomed to ignoring the patent situation because they don't really have a choice if you want to be interoperable, but that isn't an excuse for creating patent problems in a field where there are already widespread royalty free standards (JPEG, PNG).
There is a reason why JPEG is blocky. The blocky nature of the encoding preserves details better.
BPG blurs everything heavily. Small details and fine textures literally disappear.(*)
JPEG is definitely outdated and web could gain from a worthy replacement. But BPG IMO doesn't appear to be "it".
(*) I wonder how JPEG would fare on the images, decoded from BPG. Since fine details are removed by BPG, the JPEG would be smaller too.
All hope abandon ye who enter here.
Remember that in many emerging markets, Blackberry is the way most of the population access the web.
Cool. A time traveler. What year are you from?
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!