4 ms·
> It's very hard to beat the encoding performance of libjpegturbo, even with an asic. Pretty much any platform with a hardware jpeg encoder beats libjpegturbo.
by SideQuark 19d ago
> It's very hard to beat the encoding performance of libjpegturbo, even with an asic.
Pretty much any platform with a hardware jpeg encoder beats libjpegturbo. So probably all smart phones, large scale CPUs, even tiny few $ microcontrollers like ESP32's have hardware encode/decode that outperforms libjpegturbo.
- kasabali 18d agoSure, if you ignore PQ completely. Not that libjpeg-turbo is pinnacle of quality but hardware encoders, seriously?
- SideQuark 18d agoIf you want to move the bar to quality for your strawman, then libjpeg-turbo is not even close in image quality to plenty of encoders, such as jpegli crush it. For compression size it also loses to modern libs. There is no metric that libjepg-turbo wins at nowadays, not even speed. Then, if you care to learn, there are extremely high quality, lkely far beyond old software like libjpeg-turbo, use in DoD projects, satellites, medical imaging systems, commercial cameras systems, and plenty of companies that sell such chips and IP to embed in ones own ASIC. There is zero technical problem taking an opensource project, turning that exact code into an ASIC or VHDL one can put into any ASIC, an so the best ideas are reused in hardware all the time. Alma Technologies, CAST, intoPIX all sell such cores that are integrated throughout the industry, embedded everywhere, and can be bought with an ever improving host of features.