(2017) This doesn't seem like a very good benchmark. First, they appear to be recompressing jpgs rather than starting from the original input image, which seem

(2017) This doesn't seem like a very good benchmark. First, they appear to be recompressing jpgs rather than starting from the original input image, which seems incompatible with the idea of a compressor that spends the time budget where it does the most good. The places where the high quality is needed the most have already been compromised by the original jpg compression. Second, they're only considering the output size but not the output quality. Sure, they're all using "quality 90". But why do we think that "quality 90" means the same visual quality across all these compressors? (And what visual quality metric would it be constant for?)