Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
03-18-2017, 03:55 PM   #16
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
RobA_Oz's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Tasmania, Australia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,182
QuoteOriginally posted by bobmaxja Quote
Do not underestimate Google
No, indeed. They'll no doubt push it through their browser, Chrome. Anywhere that gets more eyes on a page means more potential revenue for them. They're not doing it for altruistic reasons.

Clearly, they haven't done this to improve IQ on a mobile phone screen, but it may have benefits for memory use on cheaper phones.

03-19-2017, 06:12 AM   #17
Veteran Member




Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Ontario
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 3,332
Google has always pushed for faster loading webpages. This agenda may hide some sinister plot, but as someone on a shoddy internet service in the boondocks I'm in favour of anything that reduces web payload size. Or if sites like Facebook opted for the same filesizes but less lossy jpegs, that would also be great (but not what I'd expect from them!).

QuoteOriginally posted by tduell Quote
Saw some discussion about this on Darktable list.
It seems that it is slow, and requires a lot of memory, 300MB per 1Mp of image if I remember correctly, so may not be such a great breakthrough.
That's mentioned here as well: Google’s Free Encoder Drops JPEG Size By 35%, But Maybe There’s Something Better Already… | SLR Lounge But it's an added memory and time cost during the initial encoding process, so probably not a big deal in practical use on a modern desktop or laptop computer, especially if we're talking about prepping files for webpages. This cost might make implementation by an entity like facebook prohibitive though, unless they can offload the resizing to the person uploading.

It will be interesting to see if imaging programs end up adopting it smoothly, or if easy to use plugins start turning up. It's hard to beat free.
03-21-2017, 03:57 PM   #18
Veteran Member
emalvick's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Davis, CA
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,642
Because it is just a JPG and fits within the standard, I'm sure it will be implemented without much else fanfare. At some point, we'll just find our jpgs are a bit smaller. It probably won't even get noticed that much.

The JPEG2000 thing I think flops like a lot of other things because it isn't exactly the same thing as a JPG and it creates frustration. I remember the first time I came across a JPEG2000 file; I couldn't believe that I couldn't open it with the software I had.

Audio kind of has the same thing. Mp3 is good enough for most people in the way JPG is good enough for most people. There are of course other formats including those that aren't lossy, so it's subjective on how much you can tell the difference and care enough to worry about it.

In photography, I've honestly never noted a difference between a JPG and Tiff file, but I'm conscious enough not to go repeatedly working on a JPG to find out. Thus, I always stick with a lossless format as a start, in images and audio. In audio, I can tell the difference on a good system, but on the go, in my car, or at work, I don't notice or even care if I'm listening to an Mp3 or worse.
03-21-2017, 04:50 PM   #19
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
Digitalis's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Melbourne, Victoria
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 11,694
QuoteOriginally posted by emalvick Quote
I've honestly never noted a difference between a JPG and Tiff file
In my experience there is a huge difference especially when it comes to latitude for editing.

03-22-2017, 12:40 PM   #20
Veteran Member
emalvick's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Davis, CA
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,642
QuoteOriginally posted by Digitalis Quote
In my experience there is a huge difference especially when it comes to latitude for editing.
I understand that.

I mean from a visual perspective. Take Tiff file and save it as a JPG (with reasonable settings). Do you see a difference?


Obviously the latitude for editing is the reason people work with Tiff and RAW files, but the end result is what it is.

People don't record or edit audio in mp3 format either. I think the same issues would show up.
03-22-2017, 04:50 PM   #21
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
Digitalis's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Melbourne, Victoria
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 11,694
QuoteOriginally posted by emalvick Quote
I mean from a visual perspective. Take Tiff file and save it as a JPG (with reasonable settings). Do you see a difference?
If there are fine gradients in the image a JPG with its 8 bit limitations can become posterized, 16 Bit tiff files do not have this issue.

But that is about it as far as visually discernible differences go.
04-21-2017, 10:43 PM   #22
Veteran Member




Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: New Mexico
Posts: 788
QuoteOriginally posted by boriscleto Quote
For the same reason this encoder won't go anywhere. The old JPEG standard is "good enough" and has been the defacto standard for two decades...

JPEG 2000 is more complex and required more processing power. It isn't a big deal now, but 15 years ago it was (JPEG 2000 came out in 2001). It didn't help that storage kept getting bigger and cheaper. There may have been patent issues too. Not from the main partners in the spec, but from submarine patents.
Sorry I'm a bit late to this thread, but I wanted to comment. This new Google JPEG encoder is just that--an encoder. It produces bog standard JPEGs that any JPEG viewer can read, it just does a much better job encoding. And it is VERY VERY slow to encode. Like hours. However, if it's something your not sitting around waiting for, but a web site puts all their hires content together then batch processes it down to web size, it could be a positive thing by enabling better quality content or smaller page sizes. It is still an open question whether it will produce better quality, or specifically what type of images it will produce better quality on:

Guetzli vs MozJPEG: Google?s New JPEG Encoder Is SLOOOW!

Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
google, google reduces jpeg, image, jpeg, jpeg file size, photography, size
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Picture file size, picture pixel size, resizeing picture, discussion panonski Digital Processing, Software, and Printing 11 12-01-2016 08:38 AM
jpeg file size bavd Pentax DSLR Discussion 37 02-08-2015 02:25 AM
K20d jpeg file size rustynail925 Pentax DSLR Discussion 8 09-05-2009 06:00 PM
Hoya reduces ad budgets benjikan Pentax News and Rumors 2 04-24-2008 09:16 PM
JPEG file size Mike Moffet Film SLRs and Compact Film Cameras 4 10-28-2007 03:20 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:40 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top