Slashdot Mirror
Google's New Compression Tool Uses 75% Less Bandwidth Without Sacrificing Image Quality (thenextweb.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Next Web: Google just released an image compression technology called RAISR (Rapid and Accurate Super Image Resolution) designed to save your precious data without sacrificing photo quality. Claiming to use up to 75 percent less bandwidth, RAISR analyzes both low and high-quality versions of the same image. Once analyzed, it learns what makes the larger version superior and simulates the differences on the smaller version. In essence, it's using machine learning to create an Instagram-like filter to trick your eye into believing the lower-quality image is on par with its full-sized variant. Unfortunately for the majority of smartphone users, the tech only works on Google+ where Google claims to be upscaling over a billion images a week. If you don't want to use Google+, you'll just have to wait a little longer. Google plans to expand RAISR to more apps over the coming months. Hopefully that means Google Photos.
Shit, first it was vp8/WEBM but momentum seems to have died on that but now there's vp9 and it's better than vp8 and now images. Google you're annoying as fuck with the moving targets on your open standards, and while I think it's great that we now have another way to store images but we still have GIF, PNG, SVG, JPEG and even your own )(*@)(*! WEBP which is based on VP8 which you don't like anymore. So now with RAISR what do we all do start buying dart boards to figure out what standards we as ISVs should be targeting? None of the other formats are going away anytime soon but since vp8, vp8, WEBP and RAISR are all under your roof, can we ask that you make up your damn minds, please?!?!
Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
is a lie, it reduces image quality just in a way you cannot see visually
If you can't see any difference then the visual quality is the same. Don't conflate visual quality with informational purity. Claiming it's a lossless conversion would be a lie, but that's not what they're claiming.
....is a lie, it reduces image quality just in a way you cannot see visually
If all you want to do is look at the image this is fine, but anything else that needs it full quality will be sacrificed
Well that's kind of the point. They didn't develop this for image manipulation tools... they developed it to save bandwidth on websites. If you cant visually tell the difference, Mission Hay-Fucking-Complished.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
And at least a 48bit resolution. Otherwise the dynamic range will be horrendous.
With the loudness war being lost, there is no dynamic range. Going to more bits is pointless if producers only use three bits of the 16 we already have in order to make everything sound as loud as possible.
....is a lie, it reduces image quality just in a way you cannot see visually
If all you want to do is look at the image this is fine, but anything else that needs it full quality will be sacrificed
Actually I think you could probably see it if the device are using isn't already so high def you can't tell the smallest details anyway. What they do is just request a 1/4 size image and then upscale it. Woo clever.
No, they request a 1/4 size image, then upscale it, then selectively restore details to portions of the image that humans pay attention to. The result isn't much larger than the 1/4 size image, but looks much better to people.
I've been doing something vaguely similar (though not automatically) for years in my portrait photography. I selectively sharpen (actually, oversharpen) key facial features (especially eyes) that are the things that people focus on when looking at a portrait. This makes the whole image seem sharper and more vibrant, though it isn't. In fact, if the entire image were sharpened in the same way it would look terrible. This is especially useful when I shoot with a soft-focus filter which creates a very nice dreamy effect but can make the subject look dull. Soft focus plus sharpened eyes (and, often, lips -- it depends) make a beautiful portrait which people find more appealing and "realistic" than without the phony sharpening. Similarly, reduced overall resolution with detail retained in the right places makes an image look as good as the full resolution version, even though it's not.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
+1.
It's really impressive how much a difference sharp eyes make. I like taking close-up portraits with my 85mm f/1.4 on a full frame sensor. 99% of the whole picture is basically completely out of focus. If the other 1% falls on the eyes, the picture looks perfectly sharp. It's junk otherwise.
Yup. When people look at portraits, they look first, last and middle at the eyes. My slight oversharpening brings out detail in the irises and lashes that people don't consciously notice but really make the image "pop".
Most of photography is understanding how humans see images and enhancing (with various techniques, including composition, focus, lighting, post-processing etc., etc.) the portions that the photographer wants the audience to look at, in ways the audience finds compelling. In hindsight it's obvious that you can take random photos and go the other direction, losing detail that no one cares about, without degrading human perception of the image. Doing it well requires some understanding of the content of the image, though, so it takes a smart-ish system.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.