3 ms·

BPG does a much better job at smaller sizes: its artifacts are way less jarring than JPEG’s (they just look like smudges). However, to my eye, Large is the onl

BPG does a much better job at smaller sizes: its artifacts are way less jarring than JPEG’s (they just look like smudges). However, to my eye, Large is the only acceptable quality level on these examples, and at Large the difference between JPEG and BPG looks almost imperceptible. Considering the cost of polyfilling, I would stick with JPEG.

sigmar 12y ago
I have to strongly disagree. For several of the images there are artifacts and noise in the large JPEG that looked much better in a medium BPG (which are about 60% the size of the JPEG). Also, saying "Large is the only acceptable quality level," means that you are only considering only a very narrow use-case
jacobolus 12y ago
> However, to my eye, Large is the only acceptable quality level on these examples, and at Large the difference between JPEG and BPG looks almost imperceptible. I feel we must be looking at different examples, or must have very different definitions of “imperceptible”. I find that there is a very substantial difference in high frequency detail between mozjpeg and BPG in nearly all of these examples at the 'large' size, as well as many images where mozjpeg produces highly objectionable artifacts even at the 'large' size and BPG does not. Speaking for myself, I would prefer to use a higher quality setting than any of the ones demonstrated even with BPG for most of my personal purposes. For my typical use cases, the 'large' BPG versions of most of these images are at the edge of acceptable quality, and every one of the other compressed versions falls far short of acceptable.† Many other people have use cases where precise image replication isn’t as important though, and at every size BPG seems like a dramatic step up over the competition. One thing I hope gets worked out before this goes mainstream is color management / color profile support. In Safari on my Mac there are several images where the rendered BPG image is obviously not correctly applying the image’s color profile. † Kakadu’s JPEG2000 encoder and WebP at that 'large' size also seem noticeably better than mozjpeg, but they still seem to wipe more high frequency detail and produce more artifacts – especially edge artifacts – than BPG. On some images packed with very high contrast fine detail (e.g. Vallée de Colca), WebP performance and BPG performance seems pretty similar and a bit better than Kakadu; in general compression is hard in these cases so the “large” size ends up being pretty large.

sigmar 12y ago

I have to strongly disagree. For several of the images there are artifacts and noise in the large JPEG that looked much better in a medium BPG (which are about 60% the size of the JPEG). Also, saying "Large is the only acceptable quality level," means that you are only considering only a very narrow use-case

jacobolus 12y ago

> However, to my eye, Large is the only acceptable quality level on these examples, and at Large the difference between JPEG and BPG looks almost imperceptible. I feel we must be looking at different examples, or must have very different definitions of “imperceptible”. I find that there is a very substantial difference in high frequency detail between mozjpeg and BPG in nearly all of these examples at the 'large' size, as well as many images where mozjpeg produces highly objectionable artifacts even at the 'large' size and BPG does not. Speaking for myself, I would prefer to use a higher quality setting than any of the ones demonstrated even with BPG for most of my personal purposes. For my typical use cases, the 'large' BPG versions of most of these images are at the edge of acceptable quality, and every one of the other compressed versions falls far short of acceptable.† Many other people have use cases where precise image replication isn’t as important though, and at every size BPG seems like a dramatic step up over the competition. One thing I hope gets worked out before this goes mainstream is color management / color profile support. In Safari on my Mac there are several images where the rendered BPG image is obviously not correctly applying the image’s color profile. † Kakadu’s JPEG2000 encoder and WebP at that 'large' size also seem noticeably better than mozjpeg, but they still seem to wipe more high frequency detail and produce more artifacts – especially edge artifacts – than BPG. On some images packed with very high contrast fine detail (e.g. Vallée de Colca), WebP performance and BPG performance seems pretty similar and a bit better than Kakadu; in general compression is hard in these cases so the “large” size ends up being pretty large.