>"Less than two bytes per source image, on average" doesn't sound to me like something implausible for a lossy compressor that is focused on such small subset o

>"Less than two bytes per source image, on average" doesn't sound to me like something implausible for a lossy compressor that is focused on such small subset of possible inputs, and gets to exploit high-level patterns in such data. Two bytes would only let you uniquely identify ~65k images though, which to me doesn't sound plausible for a lossy compressor.