3 ms·
It's interesting that Mozilla has chosen to use an image with so much red, which makes JPEG (at their settings) look relatively poor even at quality 100. You ca
by pdknsk 12y ago
It's interesting that Mozilla has chosen to use an image with so much red, which makes JPEG (at their settings) look relatively poor even at quality 100. You cannot optimise the limitations of 2x2 chroma subsampling.
I am also not convinced by Trellis yet. In my tests, it introduced a faint blur. In fairness though, I only tried 4:4:4 and not 4:2:0 as Mozilla apparently does. In the latter case, additional blur may not be noticeable.
- Daemon404 12y agoYou can 'optimize' encode-time by using better chroma downsampling, but really the issue is usually on the client side upsampling (a lot of libs use terrible nearest neighbor for 'speed'). As for trellis, you should play with the different metrics available (MS-SSIM etc), but I agree I have not been wowed yet.
- pdknsk 12y agoYes, optimise is the wrong word. I meant optimise away really, but that's still not quite right. The WebP authors are actually working on improving chroma subsampling, because VP8 limits WebP to 2x2.
- Daemon404 12y agomozjpeg has such a bug opened too: https://github.com/mozilla/mozjpeg/issues/8 https://github.com/mozilla/mozjpeg/issues/8 This isn't exactly new ground beign covered here, nor is it tied to one image format, so I wish people would be a little less NIH-y sometimes...