7 ms·

That's not a replacement nor a competitor for the popular "JPEG" format. The only commonality here is that it's coordinated by the Joint Photographic Experts Gr

by pornel 9y ago

That's not a replacement nor a competitor for the popular "JPEG" format. The only commonality here is that it's coordinated by the Joint Photographic Experts Group. You'll never see JPEG-XS images stored on disk or sent over the web. This is a special-purpose format for video signals on the wire (e.g. for transmission between your graphics card and a 4K monitor). Currently if your cables don't have enough bandwidth for the full uncompressed RGB signal, you get lower FPS, or lower bit precision, or subsampled YCbCr. This is an attempt to make something a bit smarter and apply cheap nearly-lossless compression on the fly instead.

zokier 9y ago
I'd point out that DisplayPort includes "Display Stream Compression", which is "visually lossless" (aka lossy) compression for display cables. So we are not talking some far-future thing, but something that is actually already being deployed (in some form) on the field.
- piracykills 9y ago
  How widely deployed is that display stream compression?
  - Scaevolus 9y ago
    Not very widely-- it's not really necessary for 4K@60 over many standard links, and 8K is very rare. https://www.pcworld.com/article/3187336/displays/more-high-end-gpus-are-now-compatible-with-dells-8k-monitor.html https://www.pcworld.com/article/3187336/displays/more-high-e...
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
Scaevolus 9y ago
This is generally called "mezzanine compression" [1], aiming at <10x reduction over uncompressed streams. Here's a PDF with more details on JPEG-XS: https://www.ibc.org/download?ac=3823 https://www.ibc.org/download?ac=3823 > "4K / 60p / 422 / 10 bits. throughput: 10.8 Gbit/s. link: 3G-SDI available throughput: 2.65 Gbit/s compression ratio: ~4" [1]: https://www.deltacast.tv/technologies/mezzanine-compression https://www.deltacast.tv/technologies/mezzanine-compression
bartl 9y ago
>You'll never see JPEG-XS images stored on disk or sent over the web. I don't see why not. The image quality is near perfect, according to the article, for not even double the average file size, and it uses much less energy to encode and decode, so it's better for your battery life on mobile devices.
- pornel 9y ago
  Because this would be at least 5 times slower to transfer compared to regular image formats, and on mobile a lot of energy goes to power the screen (while user is staring at a blank one, waiting for data) and radios (which now have 5x more work to do). JPEG XS has severe restrictions of realtime encoding and a 30-line buffer, which are necessary for its goals, but make it a bad choice for anything that doesn't have such limitations.
  - matte_black 9y ago
    Is it a bad choice, or an impossible choice? Because if it’s possible to send one over the web, I would like to see it rendered with my own eyes. Speed be damned.
- calibas 9y ago
  I think the whole appeal is faster encoding/decoding, but compared to a normal jpeg, it's the same image quality with a larger file size. I could be mistaken, the article is kinda light on actual technical details.

by pornel 9y ago

zokier 9y ago

I'd point out that DisplayPort includes "Display Stream Compression", which is "visually lossless" (aka lossy) compression for display cables. So we are not talking some far-future thing, but something that is actually already being deployed (in some form) on the field.

piracykills 9y ago
How widely deployed is that display stream compression?
- Scaevolus 9y ago
  Not very widely-- it's not really necessary for 4K@60 over many standard links, and 8K is very rare. https://www.pcworld.com/article/3187336/displays/more-high-end-gpus-are-now-compatible-with-dells-8k-monitor.html https://www.pcworld.com/article/3187336/displays/more-high-e...
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]

Scaevolus 9y ago

This is generally called "mezzanine compression" [1], aiming at <10x reduction over uncompressed streams. Here's a PDF with more details on JPEG-XS: https://www.ibc.org/download?ac=3823 https://www.ibc.org/download?ac=3823 > "4K / 60p / 422 / 10 bits. throughput: 10.8 Gbit/s. link: 3G-SDI available throughput: 2.65 Gbit/s compression ratio: ~4" [1]: https://www.deltacast.tv/technologies/mezzanine-compression https://www.deltacast.tv/technologies/mezzanine-compression

bartl 9y ago

>You'll never see JPEG-XS images stored on disk or sent over the web. I don't see why not. The image quality is near perfect, according to the article, for not even double the average file size, and it uses much less energy to encode and decode, so it's better for your battery life on mobile devices.

pornel 9y ago
Because this would be at least 5 times slower to transfer compared to regular image formats, and on mobile a lot of energy goes to power the screen (while user is staring at a blank one, waiting for data) and radios (which now have 5x more work to do). JPEG XS has severe restrictions of realtime encoding and a 30-line buffer, which are necessary for its goals, but make it a bad choice for anything that doesn't have such limitations.
- matte_black 9y ago
  Is it a bad choice, or an impossible choice? Because if it’s possible to send one over the web, I would like to see it rendered with my own eyes. Speed be damned.
calibas 9y ago
I think the whole appeal is faster encoding/decoding, but compared to a normal jpeg, it's the same image quality with a larger file size. I could be mistaken, the article is kinda light on actual technical details.