3 ms·

Here’s what this image looks like if I rescale the original to half this size, save it using Adobe Photoshop’s JPEG encoder at ~26 kb size, then enlarge it back

Here’s what this image looks like if I rescale the original to half this size, save it using Adobe Photoshop’s JPEG encoder at ~26 kb size, then enlarge it back to double size: https://i.imgur.com/t8GWPxX.jpg https://i.imgur.com/t8GWPxX.jpg It looks like garbage. It would still look like garbage if you resized it to some different size and used the appropriate level of JPEG compression to get a 26 kb image. JPEG just isn’t good enough to make this image workable for 1300x900 pixel output using only 26 kb.

ajross 7y ago
> It looks like garbage Sigh. Not like the garbage in the link above it doesn't. If this was the image in the link we all would have nodded and said "yup, looks about worth a doubling of byte count" and we'd all be in agreement. Instead, the absurdist misencoded nonsense above gets thrown around as proof that BPG is some kind of revolutionary technology, and a bunch of us have to step in to debunk the silliness. It's twice as efficient (roughly). Just say that and leave the spin.
- andy_ppp 7y ago
  What spin? You're the one getting confused about the point of the demo - to show that for very low byte count you can get a reasonably clean BPG image (when compared to JPG it's much much much better or can't you see?); so that people can be more informed about it's relative size/performance ratio at one data point. I find it amazing that you seem to be adding in all sorts of nonsense about scaling images and filtering and such. It's not relevant to the discussion about at X filesize and res JPEG looks appalling and BPG looks pretty passable. This is the widest distance between the two formats for sure, but if you want large hires images at very small file sizes BPG is a pretty nice format. As I go on to say the savings are outweighed by the cost of including the decoder plugin and the probably battery and memory cost this incurs.

ajross 7y ago

> It looks like garbage Sigh. Not like the garbage in the link above it doesn't. If this was the image in the link we all would have nodded and said "yup, looks about worth a doubling of byte count" and we'd all be in agreement. Instead, the absurdist misencoded nonsense above gets thrown around as proof that BPG is some kind of revolutionary technology, and a bunch of us have to step in to debunk the silliness. It's twice as efficient (roughly). Just say that and leave the spin.

andy_ppp 7y ago
What spin? You're the one getting confused about the point of the demo - to show that for very low byte count you can get a reasonably clean BPG image (when compared to JPG it's much much much better or can't you see?); so that people can be more informed about it's relative size/performance ratio at one data point. I find it amazing that you seem to be adding in all sorts of nonsense about scaling images and filtering and such. It's not relevant to the discussion about at X filesize and res JPEG looks appalling and BPG looks pretty passable. This is the widest distance between the two formats for sure, but if you want large hires images at very small file sizes BPG is a pretty nice format. As I go on to say the savings are outweighed by the cost of including the decoder plugin and the probably battery and memory cost this incurs.