Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Stack)   Google's new JPEG encoding method promises a quicker web, but slower compression   ( thestack.com) divider line
    More: Interesting, new compression algorithm, image file sizes, different compression formats, long-established image compression, slower compression, Graphics Interchange Format, LZW compression format, compression speed performance  
•       •       •

1217 clicks; posted to Geek » on 17 Mar 2017 at 12:20 PM (30 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



28 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2017-03-17 11:00:02 AM  
I used to have a program that would compress JPG files from a scale of 0 to 100... no idea how the algorithm worked, but when you compressed down near 0 it was so laughingly bad, it was kinda fun.  Programs like Photoshop and the like try to do a good job, even if you're compressing down to the lowest possible it'll go.

This program... it had attitude... it was all "I don't give a shiat."

I dunno, reminded me of that.  I should try to find it again.

Of course, I think, only I would find something like this funny.
 
2017-03-17 11:04:26 AM  
Have they tried middle out?
 
2017-03-17 11:21:42 AM  
img.fark.net
 
2017-03-17 11:26:33 AM  
img.fark.net
I eagerly await the day this goes public.
 
2017-03-17 12:29:32 PM  
www.feistees.com

They should just buy these guys.
 
2017-03-17 12:48:07 PM  
Makes sense to me... pictures are generally only compressed a single time but are decompressed many more times.
 
2017-03-17 12:50:51 PM  

downstairs: I used to have a program that would compress JPG files from a scale of 0 to 100... no idea how the algorithm worked, but when you compressed down near 0 it was so laughingly bad, it was kinda fun.  Programs like Photoshop and the like try to do a good job, even if you're compressing down to the lowest possible it'll go.

This program... it had attitude... it was all "I don't give a shiat."

I dunno, reminded me of that.  I should try to find it again.

Of course, I think, only I would find something like this funny.


media-dominaria.cursecdn.com
 
2017-03-17 12:59:02 PM  
For when someone posts a compressed image/uses Windows XP to save a jpeg...
Youtube QEzhxP-pdos
 
2017-03-17 12:59:45 PM  
FTFA: high quality JPEG images with file sizes 35% smaller than currently available methods,

Isn't around 1/3 the minimal amount of savings needed for changing a technology?
Nobody would really care if it saved 5%.
 
2017-03-17 01:03:38 PM  
"the new compression algorithm does not affect web compatibility" ...

"the important thing is that the browser/viewer/player knows how to handle the different compression formats it might find after the JPEG marker"


I do not understand how those two statements are not in direct conflict with each other.  Can anyone elucidate me?
 
2017-03-17 01:04:57 PM  
Let's get this out of the way.

imgs.xkcd.com
 
2017-03-17 01:14:58 PM  

downstairs: I used to have a program that would compress JPG files from a scale of 0 to 100... no idea how the algorithm worked, but when you compressed down near 0 it was so laughingly bad, it was kinda fun.  Programs like Photoshop and the like try to do a good job, even if you're compressing down to the lowest possible it'll go.

This program... it had attitude... it was all "I don't give a shiat."

I dunno, reminded me of that.  I should try to find it again.

Of course, I think, only I would find something like this funny.


David Mitchell: On sign writers and the apostrophe
Youtube DUiWXNt7lqc
 
2017-03-17 01:20:58 PM  

midigod: "the new compression algorithm does not affect web compatibility" ...

"the important thing is that the browser/viewer/player knows how to handle the different compression formats it might find after the JPEG marker"
,
I do not understand how those two statements are not in direct conflict with each other.  Can anyone elucidate me?


ELI5:  Back in the day, you'd try watching an AVI file but only to get an error saying that "a codec cannot be found to play this file", yet you can play other AVI files without issue.

AVI is the container that the video itself goes into, but with minimal specification to how the video itself is saved.  If you played a recently created AVI file on a Windows 95 machine, it would freak the fark out because the video encoders on that system are 20+ years old and would have no idea how to play the video within the AVI.  Yes, it knows there's a video in there somewhere, but has no idea what to do with it.

This new standard avoids all of this.  It manages to decrease the filesize by 35%, but without breaking compatibility.  You could open a JPG file saved with this algorithm on a Windows 95 machine without issue, because it saves the data in a legacy format but somehow managed to excise unnecessary data without hurting quality.
 
2017-03-17 02:02:10 PM  

anwserman: midigod: "the new compression algorithm does not affect web compatibility" ...

"the important thing is that the browser/viewer/player knows how to handle the different compression formats it might find after the JPEG marker"
,
I do not understand how those two statements are not in direct conflict with each other.  Can anyone elucidate me?

ELI5:  Back in the day, you'd try watching an AVI file but only to get an error saying that "a codec cannot be found to play this file", yet you can play other AVI files without issue.

AVI is the container that the video itself goes into, but with minimal specification to how the video itself is saved.  If you played a recently created AVI file on a Windows 95 machine, it would freak the fark out because the video encoders on that system are 20+ years old and would have no idea how to play the video within the AVI.  Yes, it knows there's a video in there somewhere, but has no idea what to do with it.

This new standard avoids all of this.  It manages to decrease the filesize by 35%, but without breaking compatibility.  You could open a JPG file saved with this algorithm on a Windows 95 machine without issue, because it saves the data in a legacy format but somehow managed to excise unnecessary data without hurting quality.



So...magic.  The new method uses magic.
 
2017-03-17 02:18:40 PM  

Mycroft_Holmes_IV: anwserman: midigod: "the new compression algorithm does not affect web compatibility" ...

"the important thing is that the browser/viewer/player knows how to handle the different compression formats it might find after the JPEG marker"
,
I do not understand how those two statements are not in direct conflict with each other.  Can anyone elucidate me?

ELI5:  Back in the day, you'd try watching an AVI file but only to get an error saying that "a codec cannot be found to play this file", yet you can play other AVI files without issue.

AVI is the container that the video itself goes into, but with minimal specification to how the video itself is saved.  If you played a recently created AVI file on a Windows 95 machine, it would freak the fark out because the video encoders on that system are 20+ years old and would have no idea how to play the video within the AVI.  Yes, it knows there's a video in there somewhere, but has no idea what to do with it.

This new standard avoids all of this.  It manages to decrease the filesize by 35%, but without breaking compatibility.  You could open a JPG file saved with this algorithm on a Windows 95 machine without issue, because it saves the data in a legacy format but somehow managed to excise unnecessary data without hurting quality.


So...magic.  The new method uses magic.


Pelvic sorcery, to be precise.
 
2017-03-17 02:43:53 PM  

FrancoFile: [www.feistees.com image 500x500]

They should just buy these guys.


Beat me to it - great show.
 
2017-03-17 02:53:26 PM  

Mycroft_Holmes_IV: So...magic. The new method uses magic.


So, the scariest environment imaginable.  That's all you had to say.
 
2017-03-17 03:24:01 PM  
img.fark.net
The woman on the left uses Google compression.
 
2017-03-17 04:45:46 PM  

Mycroft_Holmes_IV: So...magic. The new method uses magic.


It takes longer on the encoding side because it's probably using some 'intelligent' algorithms to determine what to toss and what not to toss.

And these algorithms are better than what older programs used.

And if you go with a really old compression program from the early days of JPEG

downstairs: This program... it had attitude... it was all "I don't give a shiat."


You get programs that do compression across the blocks, with no regards as to what's actually in those blocks.

For example

img.fark.net

A modern compression algorithm should be smart enough to realize that this is text on a gray background, and not feather the shiat out of the lettering.

Whereas the old algorithms just look at the 8x8 grid and do the compression (with no regard to the content of the entire image).

// used to fine-tune compressed JPEGs by hand back in the .com era. In photoshop, zoomed in 800% so that I could see individual pixels and clean up edges.

When making icons/images for web apps, I looked at shiat like this for about a dozen+ hours each week.

img.fark.net
 
2017-03-17 05:50:41 PM  
So useless for cameras but useful for Lightroom and PS.
 
2017-03-17 06:05:10 PM  

Mycroft_Holmes_IV: anwserman: midigod: "the new compression algorithm does not affect web compatibility" ...

"the important thing is that the browser/viewer/player knows how to handle the different compression formats it might find after the JPEG marker"
,
I do not understand how those two statements are not in direct conflict with each other.  Can anyone elucidate me?

ELI5:  Back in the day, you'd try watching an AVI file but only to get an error saying that "a codec cannot be found to play this file", yet you can play other AVI files without issue.

AVI is the container that the video itself goes into, but with minimal specification to how the video itself is saved.  If you played a recently created AVI file on a Windows 95 machine, it would freak the fark out because the video encoders on that system are 20+ years old and would have no idea how to play the video within the AVI.  Yes, it knows there's a video in there somewhere, but has no idea what to do with it.

This new standard avoids all of this.  It manages to decrease the filesize by 35%, but without breaking compatibility.  You could open a JPG file saved with this algorithm on a Windows 95 machine without issue, because it saves the data in a legacy format but somehow managed to excise unnecessary data without hurting quality.


So...magic.  The new method uses magic.


Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic, so yes.
 
2017-03-17 09:03:57 PM  
what ever happened to wavelet compression? Same idea - huge up front compression time and far less time to pull up and display.
 
2017-03-17 09:13:12 PM  

midigod: "the new compression algorithm does not affect web compatibility" ...

"the important thing is that the browser/viewer/player knows how to handle the different compression formats it might find after the JPEG marker"

I do not understand how those two statements are not in direct conflict with each other.  Can anyone elucidate me?


Their first statement is in reference to this being a new compression method to be added to the JPEG format. Browsers/software already support the JPEG format.

Their second statement is in reference that while this new compression method isn't "changing the format", existing software needs to be updated to support it, or any other compression methods added to the format.

I can see how they are trying to square them up, but I wouldn't call it backwards compatible. This is just using a format feature as intended. Not to sell this new compression method short or anything, it sounds pretty cool,
 
2017-03-17 10:58:13 PM  

lordargent: Mycroft_Holmes_IV: So...magic. The new method uses magic.

It takes longer on the encoding side because it's probably using some 'intelligent' algorithms to determine what to toss and what not to toss.

And these algorithms are better than what older programs used.

And if you go with a really old compression program from the early days of JPEG

downstairs: This program... it had attitude... it was all "I don't give a shiat."

You get programs that do compression across the blocks, with no regards as to what's actually in those blocks.

For example

[img.fark.net image 300x150]

A modern compression algorithm should be smart enough to realize that this is text on a gray background, and not feather the shiat out of the lettering.

Whereas the old algorithms just look at the 8x8 grid and do the compression (with no regard to the content of the entire image).

// used to fine-tune compressed JPEGs by hand back in the .com era. In photoshop, zoomed in 800% so that I could see individual pixels and clean up edges.

When making icons/images for web apps, I looked at shiat like this for about a dozen+ hours each week.

[img.fark.net image 192x256]


I've noticed that video compression is smart enough to do this as well. Objects in focus were clear but the shiat behind them was compressed as fark. I could see every freckle on Morgan Freeman's face and about 10 blocks behind him.
 
2017-03-18 08:31:56 AM  
It's pronounced "Juh-Peeg", not "J-Peg"
 
2017-03-18 11:27:46 AM  
 
For when someone posts a compressed image/uses Windows XP to save a jpeg...
Youtube QEzhxP-pdos
 
2017-03-18 11:57:58 AM  

exvaxman: what ever happened to wavelet compression? Same idea - huge up front compression time and far less time to pull up and display.


That's been out in the wild for a long time now. The JPEG 2000 format uses it. The file extension would be .jp2 or .jpx

Zombie's Head: Their first statement is in reference to this being a new compression method to be added to the JPEG format. Browsers/software already support the JPEG format.


It's not a new compression method added to the JPEG format. It's an encoder that does a much better job of using the existing JPEG compression format.

Google did a lot of work on what parts of the image data it's important to save, given the way human eyes work and how the brain picks out the important information in what the eye sees.

It also lets them figure out what bits of detail are safer to throw away. The more you throw away, the smaller the file size.
 
2017-03-18 01:29:06 PM  

BullBearMS: exvaxman: what ever happened to wavelet compression? Same idea - huge up front compression time and far less time to pull up and display.

That's been out in the wild for a long time now. The JPEG 2000 format uses it. The file extension would be .jp2 or .jpx

Zombie's Head: Their first statement is in reference to this being a new compression method to be added to the JPEG format. Browsers/software already support the JPEG format.

It's not a new compression method added to the JPEG format. It's an encoder that does a much better job of using the existing JPEG compression format.

Google did a lot of work on what parts of the image data it's important to save, given the way human eyes work and how the brain picks out the important information in what the eye sees.

It also lets them figure out what bits of detail are safer to throw away. The more you throw away, the smaller the file size.


That's what I thought it was at first, but somehow I convinced myself it was a new compression method. That's even more impressive. The encoding method, not me confusing myself.
 
Displayed 28 of 28 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking

On Twitter





Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report