Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by Fnord666 on Sunday March 19 2017, @10:09PM   Printer-friendly
from the just-use-a-photocopier-multiple-times dept.

Google has developed and open-sourced a new JPEG algorithm that reduces file size by about 35 percent—or alternatively, image quality can be significantly improved while keeping file size constant. Importantly, and unlike some of its other efforts in image compression (WebP, WebM), Google's new JPEGs are completely compatible with existing browsers, devices, photo editing apps, and the JPEG standard.

The new JPEG encoder is called Guetzli, which is Swiss German for cookie (the project was led by Google Research's Zurich office). Don't pay too much attention to the name: after extensive analysis, I can't find anything in the Github repository related to cookies or indeed any other baked good.

There are numerous ways of tweaking JPEG image quality and file size, but Guetzli focuses on the quantization stage of compression. Put simply, quantization is a process that tries to reduce a large amount of disordered data, which is hard to compress, into ordered data, which is very easy to compress. In JPEG encoding, this process usually reduces gentle colour gradients to single blocks of colour and often obliterates small details entirely.

The difficult bit is finding a balance between removing detail, and keeping file size down. Every lossy encoder (libjpeg, x264, lame) does it differently.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 3, Interesting) by AthanasiusKircher on Sunday March 19 2017, @11:02PM (7 children)

    by AthanasiusKircher (5291) on Sunday March 19 2017, @11:02PM (#481286) Journal

    The load times will be much higher and bandwidth costs will be crippling.

    In an era where most people are streaming HQ video all the time, and even a lot of ads are video-based, this argument is specious. Bandwidth is eaten up a lot more by that nonsense than it would be by slightly larger static image files.

    And in any case, I don't think this was GP's point -- obviously the possibility of lossy compression should exist for specific applications (like website optimization), but why would you want it to be saved as the default for your raw image when you're taking a photo to begin with? All it does is set in motion generational degradation from the start if you want to do any further processing of the image.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +1  
       Interesting=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Interesting' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   3  
  • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 20 2017, @01:12AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 20 2017, @01:12AM (#481308)

    In an era where most people are streaming HQ video all the time

    Not even remotely true, even if you're just looking at a tiny part of the world (USA).

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 20 2017, @02:23AM (1 child)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 20 2017, @02:23AM (#481334)

    Not all websites are serving HD videos. Compression is not done for the client, it is done for the server. A compressed file of 50% decrease in size can mean total number of users going up by 200%.

    • (Score: 2) by AthanasiusKircher on Monday March 20 2017, @03:51AM

      by AthanasiusKircher (5291) on Monday March 20 2017, @03:51AM (#481351) Journal

      Yes, I get all that, which is why I specifically said in my post that good (and lossy, if necessary) compression should exist FOR SPECIFIC APPLICATIONS, like web optimization.

      The question I asked, yet again (and which I think the OP was concerned with) is why lossy JPEG is still default for a lot of devices like cameras that create this media in the first place.

  • (Score: 3, Interesting) by dry on Monday March 20 2017, @03:12AM (1 child)

    by dry (223) on Monday March 20 2017, @03:12AM (#481344) Journal

    We don't all have endless bandwidth, at home I connect at 26.4 kb/s and I'm not that far out of town. Data is also very expensive here in Canada, actually makes the States look cheap. On my pay as you go account it is a dollar for 20 mbs or about half a dozen web pages based on the average page being about 3MBs. Once they finish building a cell tower to serve my area and finish shutting off the dial up connection (officially died last Nov 16th), the best deal will be $85 for 10 GBs + a nickel a MB for overages. I won't be streaming HQ videos and every bit of bandwidth savings will be good.
    To answer another of your comments, some of us don't have expensive devices with tons of memory and at least having the choice of saving in JPEG so pictures only take up about 2MBs can be good. If I want to shoot high res pictures, it won't be on my phone with its crappy little lens with palm prints all over it.

    • (Score: 3, Interesting) by AthanasiusKircher on Monday March 20 2017, @04:02AM

      by AthanasiusKircher (5291) on Monday March 20 2017, @04:02AM (#481354) Journal

      Choice is good. No argument there. At no point am I advocating that lossy JPEG should be abolished completely. But its ubiquity as default, particularly in use for camera devices, is weird these days.

      And actually, regarding phone as camera, I have a close friend who is actually a kinda artsy photographer and recently gave up on buying standalone cameras, instead investing in a set of lenses for his phone. Cameras in phones have gotten really good in the past few years.

      Also, regarding memory, the problem isn't generally the expense of the devices, but the ridiculous restrictions of some manufacturers of devices. Micro SSD cards are incredibly cheap these days, able to store thousands of pretty HQ photos for a pittance. The problem isn't the cost of memory, but the manufacturers that refuse to allow SSD upgrade options easily -- instead charging $100 upgrade cost for $5 worth of extra memory or whatever.

      I presented my argument in an unclear way at first -- what I should have said up-front (and which I did say in my post) is that I have no problem with web optimization of images for bandwidth reasons. I think it's a good thing. But I do think that (1) many people (though certainly not all) waste huge amounts of bandwidth -- both serverside and clientside -- and for them the small optimization from images can be irrelevant, and (2) defaulting to lossy formats at the point of TAKING photos is what I find most baffling, given that it will degrade your ultimate product if you need to do further editing, conversion, etc.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 20 2017, @01:51PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 20 2017, @01:51PM (#481489)

    In an era where most people are streaming HQ video all the time,

    If I stream a HD video, it is my decision, and I'll do that decision based on the current connection. If I decide that at my current available bandwidth/data I cannot afford streaming HD I won't do it (indeed, likely I won't stream video at all). When I'm using my fat DSL at home, I don't mind HD streams, nor big images. However I have little control over the bandwidth used by the images embedded into a web page.

    and even a lot of ads are video-based

    That's what ad blockers and related technologies are for (or rather, against).

    why would you want it to be saved as the default for your raw image when you're taking a photo to begin with?

    A professional photographer will use a camera that stores raw images. Note that PNGs aren't raw images either, as even the step going from sensor data to a viewable image consists of considerable processing (for example note that unless you've got a really expensive camera, on your camera there's only one physical colour channel for each pixel, while all the other channels are interpolated from the surrounding pixels; cameras which have full colour on all pixels are expensive because of the additional optics and extra CCDs required).

  • (Score: 2) by urza9814 on Tuesday March 21 2017, @09:10PM

    by urza9814 (3954) on Tuesday March 21 2017, @09:10PM (#482397) Journal

    In an era where most people are streaming HQ video all the time, and even a lot of ads are video-based, this argument is specious. Bandwidth is eaten up a lot more by that nonsense than it would be by slightly larger static image files.

    Believe it or not, there are still people in this world who can't do that. My parents among them. It literally takes at least ten minutes to load CNN.com on their internet -- and usually the page won't even load entirely -- so they sure as hell aren't streaming Netflix all day long.

    And in any case, I don't think this was GP's point -- obviously the possibility of lossy compression should exist for specific applications (like website optimization), but why would you want it to be saved as the default for your raw image when you're taking a photo to begin with? All it does is set in motion generational degradation from the start if you want to do any further processing of the image.

    Man, I was shooting in raw on a $200 point and shoot back in 2007, and they've only gotten cheaper and more advanced since. These days any Android phone can do it, and I assume iPhones too. And AFAIK damn near every DSLR has had that feature from the beginning. If your device doesn't let you change the file format, the problem isn't the format, it's the device. But in most cases the photos taken on the lower end devices aren't being printed and framed, they're being texted or emailed or posted to Facebook -- the exact situations where file size matters. So slightly lossy jpeg is still a sane default. If you're trying to do higher quality photography and are looking to get top quality shots, you either know enough to change the file format or you don't know enough for it to really matter yet.