6 ms·

The folks behind Beamr H.264 also have a 'patent pending', proprietary JPEG image "recompression technology": http://www.jpegmini.com/ http://www.jpegmini.com/

by haven 14y ago

The folks behind Beamr H.264 also have a 'patent pending', proprietary JPEG image "recompression technology": http://www.jpegmini.com/ http://www.jpegmini.com/ I'm curious what an analysis of one of their JPEG's would show?

dangrossman 14y ago
The files in the before/after preview slider are exactly the same file size when they're supposed to be showing how their compressed image looks as good as the original. They're also not the same files you get when you click the download button.
- drorgill 14y ago
  Those are just preview files used for fast page load, but they are based on resized versions of the original and the JPEGmini version. You are welcome to download the original and JPEGmini full resolution files, and compare them at "Actual Size" (100% zoom).
  - nwh 14y ago
    If you get two large images and resize them down to a small preview, they'll look the same. It's really complete bullshit showing those as "examples".
  - lwat 14y ago
    I downloaded the pic of the dog, opened the 'Original' in Paint.net, re-saved it at the same filesize as the JPEGmini version and it's indistinguishable from the other two versions. JPEGmini doesn't seem to do anything that I can't already do in any image editor. Looks like snake oil to me.
    - drorgill 14y ago
      Note my previous reply on this issue: JPEGmini adaptively encodes each JPEG file to the minimum file size possible without affecting its original quality (the output size is of course different for each input file). You can take a specific file and tune a regular JPEG encoder to reach the same size as JPEGmini did on that specific file. And you can also manually tune the quality for each image using a regular JPEG encoder by viewing the photo before and after compression. But there is no other technology that can do this automatically (and adaptively) for millions of photos.
      - mistercow 14y ago
        >JPEGmini adaptively encodes each JPEG file to the minimum file size possible without affecting its original quality That is indeed what the FAQ says, but that being the case, the tool does not actually work very well, and the presentation is incredibly dishonest. The fact is that the JPEGmini versions of these images do lose noticeable quality, but Beamr is hiding this by giving a demo where the images are shown at 25% scale. Take the dog image, for example. Using the slider, you'd think that JPEGmini nailed it; no visible artifacts whatsoever. But let's look at a section of the image at 100% scale, and see if this tool is really that impressive: http://imgur.com/z12mHnd http://imgur.com/z12mHnd ...holy block artifacts Batman!
        crynix 14y ago
        I hope you're aware imgur compresses images that you upload to it regardless of whether they were already compressed.
        mistercow 14y ago
        Maybe they do that for lossy images, but I just compared what's on imgur to the original on my computer, and it is pixel-for-pixel identical. They did shave about 7KB off of it though, so maybe they push PNGs through pngout or similar. I mean, as far as I know, there aren't even any practically useful algorithms out there for doing lossy compression on PNGs (although there should be).
        nitrogen 14y ago
        Fireworks, pngquant, and png-nq have quantization algorithms that will dither a 32-bit PNG with alpha down to 8-bit palletized PNGs with alpha. The palette selection algorithms the free tools use (I haven't used Fireworks) sometimes drop important colors used in only a small section of an image, resulting in a blue power LED losing its blue color.
        mistercow 14y ago
  - deleted 14y ago
    [deleted]
wmf 14y ago
JPEGmini operates on a similar principle to Beamr. The JPEGs coming out of your camera are compressed with a very high (wasteful) quantizer setting, so JPEGmini analyzes the image and recompresses with a much lower but visually identical quantizer setting.
- Bustard 14y ago
  I have a bridge to sell you...
mistercow 14y ago
Downloading the ros-k sample and playing with it in GIMP, it looks like exactly the same kind of chicanery using a few simple steps: 1. The "original" image is saved at a very high JPEG quality setting, somewhere around 99% by GIMP's figuring 2. The "JPEGmini" version is saved with a slightly lower, but still high quality setting of about 85%. 3. The "comparison" on the website shows the images scaled down to 25% of their encoded resolution. In other words, the JPEGmini version is nothing special. If you save a JPEG at 85% quality and look at 1/4 scale, it will look exactly the same as a JPEG saved at 99% quality at 1/4 scale. And it will look just as good as if you pass it through Beamr's software.
- bjornsing 14y ago
  Well, yes. But I think the whole point of this technology is that you don't have to come up with the 85% number. It can be a lot of work to find the lowest quality setting that will be perceived as (near) lossless. Think millions of files.
  - mistercow 14y ago
    I see now that this is what they purport to do. However I still maintain that the presentation is dishonest. Showing a comparison at 25% scale gives the impression that the tool is better at choosing "nearly lossless" setting than it really is. Look at the dog image, which on their demo appears to be identical to the original. Now look at it at 100% scale: http://imgur.com/z12mHnd http://imgur.com/z12mHnd . Block artifacts galore. Now sure, it may still do a better job than just choosing a constant quality setting and applying it across the board. But the demo doesn't show us that. It doesn't even make the right kind of comparison. What we need is a comparison of choosing a single quality level, and using JPEGmini. To be useful, here's the kind of demo we'd need to see. On the right side: five JPEGs saved with JPEGmini, having a total file size of X, shown at 100% resolution. On the left side: five JPEGs saved with a constant quality setting, chosen so that the total file size is X, also shown at 100% resolution. Then we'd honestly know whether the program is worth using. My guess? Probably not. The train station image, for example, is so grainy that you can compress it to damn near 600KB (50% in GIMP) before the artifacts are really noticeable (and well beyond that if you scale it down to 25% afterward). So did JPEGmini's visual model detect this and cut the bitrate down accordingly? No, it decided that the image should be saved at the equivalent of 83%, making the file more than twice as large as necessary. And this is on an image that was presumably handpicked as a shining example of how well the product works. My guess is that if you just chose around a 75% quality setting and compressed all of your JPEGs that way, you'd do just as well as JPEGmini.

by haven 14y ago

dangrossman 14y ago

The files in the before/after preview slider are exactly the same file size when they're supposed to be showing how their compressed image looks as good as the original. They're also not the same files you get when you click the download button.

drorgill 14y ago
Those are just preview files used for fast page load, but they are based on resized versions of the original and the JPEGmini version. You are welcome to download the original and JPEGmini full resolution files, and compare them at "Actual Size" (100% zoom).
- nwh 14y ago
  If you get two large images and resize them down to a small preview, they'll look the same. It's really complete bullshit showing those as "examples".
- lwat 14y ago
  I downloaded the pic of the dog, opened the 'Original' in Paint.net, re-saved it at the same filesize as the JPEGmini version and it's indistinguishable from the other two versions. JPEGmini doesn't seem to do anything that I can't already do in any image editor. Looks like snake oil to me.
  - drorgill 14y ago
    Note my previous reply on this issue: JPEGmini adaptively encodes each JPEG file to the minimum file size possible without affecting its original quality (the output size is of course different for each input file). You can take a specific file and tune a regular JPEG encoder to reach the same size as JPEGmini did on that specific file. And you can also manually tune the quality for each image using a regular JPEG encoder by viewing the photo before and after compression. But there is no other technology that can do this automatically (and adaptively) for millions of photos.
    - mistercow 14y ago
      >JPEGmini adaptively encodes each JPEG file to the minimum file size possible without affecting its original quality That is indeed what the FAQ says, but that being the case, the tool does not actually work very well, and the presentation is incredibly dishonest. The fact is that the JPEGmini versions of these images do lose noticeable quality, but Beamr is hiding this by giving a demo where the images are shown at 25% scale. Take the dog image, for example. Using the slider, you'd think that JPEGmini nailed it; no visible artifacts whatsoever. But let's look at a section of the image at 100% scale, and see if this tool is really that impressive: http://imgur.com/z12mHnd http://imgur.com/z12mHnd ...holy block artifacts Batman!
      - crynix 14y ago
        I hope you're aware imgur compresses images that you upload to it regardless of whether they were already compressed.
        mistercow 14y ago
        Maybe they do that for lossy images, but I just compared what's on imgur to the original on my computer, and it is pixel-for-pixel identical. They did shave about 7KB off of it though, so maybe they push PNGs through pngout or similar. I mean, as far as I know, there aren't even any practically useful algorithms out there for doing lossy compression on PNGs (although there should be).
        nitrogen 14y ago
        Fireworks, pngquant, and png-nq have quantization algorithms that will dither a 32-bit PNG with alpha down to 8-bit palletized PNGs with alpha. The palette selection algorithms the free tools use (I haven't used Fireworks) sometimes drop important colors used in only a small section of an image, resulting in a blue power LED losing its blue color.
        mistercow 14y ago
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]

wmf 14y ago

JPEGmini operates on a similar principle to Beamr. The JPEGs coming out of your camera are compressed with a very high (wasteful) quantizer setting, so JPEGmini analyzes the image and recompresses with a much lower but visually identical quantizer setting.

Bustard 14y ago
I have a bridge to sell you...

mistercow 14y ago

Downloading the ros-k sample and playing with it in GIMP, it looks like exactly the same kind of chicanery using a few simple steps: 1. The "original" image is saved at a very high JPEG quality setting, somewhere around 99% by GIMP's figuring 2. The "JPEGmini" version is saved with a slightly lower, but still high quality setting of about 85%. 3. The "comparison" on the website shows the images scaled down to 25% of their encoded resolution. In other words, the JPEGmini version is nothing special. If you save a JPEG at 85% quality and look at 1/4 scale, it will look exactly the same as a JPEG saved at 99% quality at 1/4 scale. And it will look just as good as if you pass it through Beamr's software.

bjornsing 14y ago
Well, yes. But I think the whole point of this technology is that you don't have to come up with the 85% number. It can be a lot of work to find the lowest quality setting that will be perceived as (near) lossless. Think millions of files.
- mistercow 14y ago
  I see now that this is what they purport to do. However I still maintain that the presentation is dishonest. Showing a comparison at 25% scale gives the impression that the tool is better at choosing "nearly lossless" setting than it really is. Look at the dog image, which on their demo appears to be identical to the original. Now look at it at 100% scale: http://imgur.com/z12mHnd http://imgur.com/z12mHnd . Block artifacts galore. Now sure, it may still do a better job than just choosing a constant quality setting and applying it across the board. But the demo doesn't show us that. It doesn't even make the right kind of comparison. What we need is a comparison of choosing a single quality level, and using JPEGmini. To be useful, here's the kind of demo we'd need to see. On the right side: five JPEGs saved with JPEGmini, having a total file size of X, shown at 100% resolution. On the left side: five JPEGs saved with a constant quality setting, chosen so that the total file size is X, also shown at 100% resolution. Then we'd honestly know whether the program is worth using. My guess? Probably not. The train station image, for example, is so grainy that you can compress it to damn near 600KB (50% in GIMP) before the artifacts are really noticeable (and well beyond that if you scale it down to 25% afterward). So did JPEGmini's visual model detect this and cut the bitrate down accordingly? No, it decided that the image should be saved at the equivalent of 83%, making the file more than twice as large as necessary. And this is on an image that was presumably handpicked as a shining example of how well the product works. My guess is that if you just chose around a 75% quality setting and compressed all of your JPEGs that way, you'd do just as well as JPEGmini.