3 ms·
When JPEGMini came out I thought it was a hoax. I've been working with various image compression tools since 1992, and was highly skeptical about their claims,
by notlisted 14y ago
When JPEGMini came out I thought it was a hoax. I've been working with various image compression tools since 1992, and was highly skeptical about their claims, but after encoding a ton of edge cases, I was convinced it was the real deal.
Have since encoded thousands of images for various clients with JPEGMini, and have never noticed ANY difference or persistent issues. Most of all, it saves me from having to experiment with individual image optimization settings. I always use it as a last step in every development project (last step because it has the annoying 'feature' that it overwrites the originals).
I dare you... Give me the original JPEG of your PNG samples (you DID start out with a JPEG, right?) and I'll repeat your experiment with my local JPEGMini install, then upload them to IMGUR for re-post here.
As to the issue at hand (Beamr/Snake-Oil): if Beamr saves me the trouble of manually having to fiddle with all kinds of optimization parameters to get very good result, much more difficult for video than JPEG, because scenes and requirements change, then that too is worth my time and money.
To be clear: I have nothing to do with Beamr or this company. I've been lurking around on HN for a long while, check my profile. The original Diaz post and claims like yours are simply a load of crock.
PS I know you can get better compression results with JPEG2000 and various more obscure formats, but the clincher for me has always been that the end result was straight ole JPEG. Works everywhere.
- nwh 14y ago> The original Diaz post and claims like yours are simply a load of crock. > you DID start out with a JPEG, right? I hope you like My Little Pony. > then upload them to IMGUR for re-post here I wouldn't try uploading JPEG images to Imgur, they get put through a compressor. Original — http://d.pr/GIWO+ http://d.pr/GIWO+ Lossy — http://d.pr/XIUf+ http://d.pr/XIUf+
- notlisted 14y agoIgnoring the fact that the original image [1] had banding issues (e.g. top left), and ignoring the fact that JPEG is a format which optimizes file size by taking advantage of the limitations of the human eye as well as typical properties of REAL photographs (ie NOT cartoons, and NOT images with largely the same tone {'orangy' in this case}), I think you have to agree that my result from the standalone JPEGMini app [3], is markedly better than your "lossy" example [2] [1] https://dl.dropbox.com/u/139377/ThreePonies/00-ORIGINAL.jpg https://dl.dropbox.com/u/139377/ThreePonies/00-ORIGINAL.jpg (1.8MB) [2] https://dl.dropbox.com/u/139377/ThreePonies/01-YOUR-LOSSY.jpg https://dl.dropbox.com/u/139377/ThreePonies/01-YOUR-LOSSY.jp... (121kB) [3] https://dl.dropbox.com/u/139377/ThreePonies/02-MY-LOSSY%28JPEGMINI%29.jpg https://dl.dropbox.com/u/139377/ThreePonies/02-MY-LOSSY%28JP... (410kB) Your lossy sample is brighter, has major artifacts around pointy hair bits, the sickle, etc. and in zoomed in mode, which is not how you should compare these things, there's a distinct lack of detail. If you were to repeat the same comparison with a realistic photo, the differences between the original and the jpegmini version, there are some, but you have to look hard, would be even less noticeable. Please note: JPEGMini does not allow me to set any parameters at all. In short: a single drag/drop on my part reduced a file from 1.8MB to 410kB and differences are extremely minimal. Another win for jpegmini.
- notlisted 14y agoTo add to my my point, check out these two real pictures, hope you like pink bags: OriginalPony [1] - 451kB - https://dl.dropbox.com/u/139377/ThreePonies/ponyphoto2-original.jpg https://dl.dropbox.com/u/139377/ThreePonies/ponyphoto2-origi... JPEGMiniPony [2] - 151kB - https://dl.dropbox.com/u/139377/ThreePonies/ponyphoto2-jpegmini.jpg https://dl.dropbox.com/u/139377/ThreePonies/ponyphoto2-jpegm... Now tell me, where is the banding? (CC, source: http://www.flickr.com/photos/dreamcicle/3552305929/sizes/l/in/photostream/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/dreamcicle/3552305929/sizes/l/i... )
- virtualritz 14y agoYou picked the wrong input to prove your point. That image has too much noise. You need smooth gradients to get banding. The pony, the smoothest part of the image, has a lot of sensor noise (more chroma than luma but still) in the 3-6 pixel frequency range.
- notlisted 14y agoI was trying to prove my photo point ("If you were to repeat the same comparison with a realistic photo, the differences between the original and the jpegmini version, there are some, but you have to look hard, would be even less noticeable.")
- Bustard 14y agoYou damn shill. Stop peddling your wares on YC!
- notlisted 14y agoMan, you need to do your homework. Throwaway account to accuse me of something? Flagged bro. I've been here for 4+ years. Loser.
- nwh 14y agoThere's certainly less impact on that image. The lower left section looks awfully blocky, but that's somewhat to be expected given the size of the image. The main difference in all of these examples is the loss of CCD noise, which could be considered a good or bad thing depending on your aim.