3 ms·

Who is going to re-encode their images en masse? Content companies? Photo sites?

by jmspring 12y ago

jacobolus 12y ago
It doesn’t need to be done by anyone en masse. It can easily be phased in gradually.
- jmspring 12y ago
  JPEG-2000 is an actual standard. I forget how supported it is. That said, not many images for the web showing up so encoded. I don't think a format requiring JS to decode and negating the whole parallel download/decode thing has a chance regardless of the elegance. It's not an imaging format discussion I this case.
  - jmspring 12y ago
    Prior HN thread - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8704629 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8704629
  - jacobolus 12y ago
    JPEG 2000 is an actual standard but to get it working you need to license a decoder from someone or build a new one, you can’t just piggyback on some existing HEVC decoder. JPEG 2000 doesn’t currently work in every browser, and there have been at least a couple of security vulnerabilities in the decoder (Kakadu I think?) that OS X ships by default and enables for Safari. In many cases where there’s no native browser or direct plugin support you can get it working with a slow, buggy, resource-hogging Flash implementation, but I’ve had pretty poor experience as a user on sites that incorporate one. I don’t believe there are any pure-Javascript implementations. As far as I can tell, this new format already has a better client compatibility story than JPEG 2000 right off the bat, as well as better quality for the same file sizes.
lmm 12y ago
Facebook. Which is probably a large percentage of the images going over the web. Heck, they could start by just doing it on mobile.
- saiya-jin 12y ago
  Nobody will reencode anything in photo sites. Just newer content will be supported. As for FB, their internal re-compression of jpegs is annoying as hell. Fine details taken with D750 become blocky almost cell phone quality images. Solution? Upload PNG.

Who is going to re-encode their images en masse? Content companies? Photo sites?

jacobolus 12y ago

It doesn’t need to be done by anyone en masse. It can easily be phased in gradually.

jmspring 12y ago
JPEG-2000 is an actual standard. I forget how supported it is. That said, not many images for the web showing up so encoded. I don't think a format requiring JS to decode and negating the whole parallel download/decode thing has a chance regardless of the elegance. It's not an imaging format discussion I this case.
- jmspring 12y ago
  Prior HN thread - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8704629 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8704629
- jacobolus 12y ago
  JPEG 2000 is an actual standard but to get it working you need to license a decoder from someone or build a new one, you can’t just piggyback on some existing HEVC decoder. JPEG 2000 doesn’t currently work in every browser, and there have been at least a couple of security vulnerabilities in the decoder (Kakadu I think?) that OS X ships by default and enables for Safari. In many cases where there’s no native browser or direct plugin support you can get it working with a slow, buggy, resource-hogging Flash implementation, but I’ve had pretty poor experience as a user on sites that incorporate one. I don’t believe there are any pure-Javascript implementations. As far as I can tell, this new format already has a better client compatibility story than JPEG 2000 right off the bat, as well as better quality for the same file sizes.

lmm 12y ago

Facebook. Which is probably a large percentage of the images going over the web. Heck, they could start by just doing it on mobile.

saiya-jin 12y ago
Nobody will reencode anything in photo sites. Just newer content will be supported. As for FB, their internal re-compression of jpegs is annoying as hell. Fine details taken with D750 become blocky almost cell phone quality images. Solution? Upload PNG.