[interested_observer]

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.

• Google reduces JPEG file size by 35% | Ars Technica UK

[Tony Belding]

I'll be looking forward to an update for JPEGmini. (Which I've already found quite useful, BTW.)

[tduell]

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.

Cheers,
Terry

[MadMathMind]

I still don't get why JPEG2000 never went anywhere. Were the browser writers just that lazy?

[boriscleto]

I still don't get why JPEG2000 never went anywhere. Were the browser writers just that lazy?

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.

[Digitalis]

The old JPEG standard is "good enough" and has been the defacto standard for two decades

Just like MP3 audio*, the JPEG will be here to remain. These two formats have really stood the test of time. FLAC is technically superior to MP3 - but common portable devices simply cannot decode it, FLAC is a free codec so devs are either horribly lazy, or can't recognize a commercial opportunity when they see it. There are less mainstream manufacturers that produces hardware that can decode FLAC and DSD - but that is a niche market, but the following is devout.

*there was MP3 Pro which extended the bandwidth of the format and retained the higher frequency content above 16khz that regular MP3 encoding attenuated, but like JPEG2000 that disappeared crabwise into the sands of time.

[lithedreamer]

Sounds like a nice option for Lightroom exports. Now if sites like Facebook could stop compressing everyone's photos in such a terrible way...

[ZombieArmy]

Just like MP3 audio*, the JPEG will be here to remain. These two formats have really stood the test of time. FLAC is technically superior to MP3 - but common portable devices simply cannot decode it, FLAC is a free codec so devs are either horribly lazy, or can't recognize a commercial opportunity when they see it. There are less mainstream manufacturers that produces hardware that can decode FLAC and DSD - but that is a niche market, but the following is devout.

*there was MP3 Pro which extended the bandwidth of the format and retained the higher frequency content above 16khz that regular MP3 encoding attenuated, but like JPEG2000 that disappeared crabwise into the sands of time.

FLAC has been picking up steam (and tbh it's not going anywhere since it's basically the de facto standard for music archiving) and MP3Lame is pretty popular.

[leekil]

Just like MP3 audio*, the JPEG will be here to remain. These two formats have really stood the test of time. FLAC is technically superior to MP3 - but common portable devices simply cannot decode it, FLAC is a free codec so devs are either horribly lazy, or can't recognize a commercial opportunity when they see it.

FLAC is superior in terms of sound quality, but the files are significantly larger than MP3s. That certainly wouldn't (and didn't) help its adoption early on for small, portable devices.

[Tony Belding]

Just like MP3 audio*, the JPEG will be here to remain. These two formats have really stood the test of time.

uhhh... I've been using AAC (also known as MP4 or M4A) for years now. I haven't ever transcoded my existing MP3 files -- there's nothing to be gained from that -- but everything new is AAC. From where I sit, MP3 is obsolescent.

[Digitalis]

FLAC is superior in terms of sound quality, but the files are significantly larger than MP3s. That certainly would (and didn't) help its adoption early on for small, portable devices.

File size certainly is a consideration for portable players. I remember the days when a 512MB MP3 player cost over $200 - now, you can find MP3 players with four times the capacity in bargain bins for $20.

. From where I sit, MP3 is obsolescent.

In several blind tests I have seen conducted High bit-rate MP3 is practically indistinguishable from FLAC*. About 60% of my library is 320kbit MP3, the rest is all FLAC. I haven't used AAC, I'm aware of the technical benefits but in the end, it is just another lossy format.

* there were instances where people took the test and mistook the 128kbit MP3 for FLAC....oops.

[ZombieArmy]

File size certainly is a consideration for portable players. I remember the days when a 512MB MP3 player cost over $200 - now, you can find MP3 players with four times the capacity in bargain bins for $20.



In several blind tests I have seen conducted High bit-rate MP3 is practically indistinguishable from FLAC*. About 60% of my library is 320kbit MP3, the rest is all FLAC. I haven't used AAC, I'm aware of the technical benefits but in the end, it is just another lossy format.

* there were instances where people took the test and mistook the 128kbit MP3 for FLAC....oops.

Of course there are situations where low bitrates won't affect the sound as much, for example MP3 will affect vocals and highs more than lows.
I've heard of these studies being done but I've never seen the papers for myself because you can easily screw that one up.

I will agree for most people high bitrate MP3s are fine for most people though since you'd really need side by side comparisons to hear the difference.

[Simen1]

I still don't get why JPEG2000 never went anywhere. Were the browser writers just that lazy?

Its legal status is complicated. Some part of it is patented but license free. Some of it are legaly unclear from my view.
JPEG 2000 - Wikipedia

The new Guetzli Jpeg encoder is open source and thus much less complicated to implement in software without the need for a team of lawyers.

[leekil]

Of course there are situations where low bitrates won't affect the sound as much, for example MP3 will affect vocals and highs more than lows.
I've heard of these studies being done but I've never seen the papers for myself because you can easily screw that one up.

I will agree for most people high bitrate MP3s are fine for most people though since you'd really need side by side comparisons to hear the difference.

The studies I have heard referenced specify that they are using "modern encoders". If you're using older software, then there is more likely to be a difference that could be detected.

[bobmaxja]

Do not underestimate Google