Will Lossless JPEGs kill Camera RAW?

In article , Neil
wrote:

On 3/20/2017 5:43 AM, android wrote:
The question can be put! Good in camera processing and lossless JPEGs...
Will average Joe bother himself with RAW from his ILC then?

The average Joe probably doesn't know what RAW is, nor whether they have
a camera capable of it, anyway.

http://www.canonwatch.com/meet-guetz...on-algoritm-th
at-may-change-the-shape-of-the-internet/

http://tinyurl.com/kapexnj

On a similar tack:
https://arstechnica.com/information-...peg-guetzli-en
coder-file-size/

I hope they don't consider the image on that page to be a demonstration
of their "good quality" results.

Thanks for the link. There was a link in it that could be of interest
for those programing AI agents patrolling the FB and its likes to
identify who knows who:

https://arstechnica.co.uk/informatio...oogle-brain-su
per-resolution-zoom-enhance/
--
teleportation kills

On Mon, 20 Mar 2017 10:43:22 +0100, android wrote:

The question can be put! Good in camera processing and lossless JPEGs...
Will average Joe bother himself with RAW from his ILC then?

http://www.canonwatch.com/meet-guetz...sion-algoritm-
th
at-may-change-the-shape-of-the-internet/

http://tinyurl.com/kapexnj

True lossless jpeg has been available for quite some time now - jpeg2k

In article ,
ray carter wrote:

On Mon, 20 Mar 2017 10:43:22 +0100, android wrote:

The question can be put! Good in camera processing and lossless JPEGs...
Will average Joe bother himself with RAW from his ILC then?

http://www.canonwatch.com/meet-guetz...sion-algoritm-
th
at-may-change-the-shape-of-the-internet/

http://tinyurl.com/kapexnj

True lossless jpeg has been available for quite some time now - jpeg2k

Yes but it's not compatible with the JPG rendering of websites etc...
This new compression would be seamless in usage with those created today
with cameras and phones. And would give you better SOOC ditto.
--
teleportation kills

In article , android
wrote:

True lossless jpeg has been available for quite some time now - jpeg2k

Yes but it's not compatible with the JPG rendering of websites etc...

and why it was a dismal failure.

This new compression would be seamless in usage with those created today
with cameras and phones. And would give you better SOOC ditto.

while that's an advantage, it's a solution in search of a problem.

high quality jpegs are indistinguishable from uncompressed images in
normal use (i.e., not pixel peeping) and file size is a complete
non-issue. disk space is cheap and getting cheaper.

In article ,
nospam wrote:

In article , android
wrote:

The question can be put! Good in camera processing and lossless
JPEGs...

it's not lossless.

But, but, so it was written!

no it wasn't. anyone who says it's lossless is very mistaken.

https://arstechnica.co.uk/informatio...google-jpeg-gu
etzli-encoder-file-size/
Guetzli, according to Google Research, uses a new psychovisual
model‹called Butteraugli, if you must know‹to work out which colours
and details to keep, and which to throw away. "Psychovisual" in this
case means it's based on the human visual processing system. The
exact details of*Butteraugli are buried within hundreds of
high-precision constants, which produce a model that "approximates
colour perception and visual masking in a more thorough and detailed
way" than other encoders.

psychovisual model = lossy

Properly done, discards aspects of the image which the human visual
system *cannot perceive*.

which colours and details to keep and which to *throw* *away* = lossy

Ditto

*approximates* colour perception and visual masking... = lossy

Ditto

If you really want to call that "lossy" then you have to say the same
thing about photographic techniques that fail to capture ultraviolet and
infrared information. After all, they most certainly were there in the
original, they are "lost" to the captured image, and they cannot be
perceived by the human visual system.

Isaac

In article , isw
wrote:

The question can be put! Good in camera processing and lossless
JPEGs...

it's not lossless.

But, but, so it was written!

no it wasn't. anyone who says it's lossless is very mistaken.

https://arstechnica.co.uk/informatio...google-jpeg-gu
etzli-encoder-file-size/
Guetzli, according to Google Research, uses a new psychovisual
model‹called Butteraugli, if you must know‹to work out which colours
and details to keep, and which to throw away. "Psychovisual" in this
case means it's based on the human visual processing system. The
exact details of*Butteraugli are buried within hundreds of
high-precision constants, which produce a model that "approximates
colour perception and visual masking in a more thorough and detailed
way" than other encoders.

psychovisual model = lossy

Properly done, discards aspects of the image which the human visual
system *cannot perceive*.

whether someone can tell the difference does not define lossy/lossless.

if that were the case, then existing high quality jpegs are already
lossless.

which colours and details to keep and which to *throw* *away* = lossy

Ditto

any time anything is thrown away, it's lossy, by definition.

*approximates* colour perception and visual masking... = lossy

Ditto

any time anything is approximated, it's lossy, by definition.

If you really want to call that "lossy" then you have to say the same
thing about photographic techniques that fail to capture ultraviolet and
infrared information. After all, they most certainly were there in the
original, they are "lost" to the captured image, and they cannot be
perceived by the human visual system.

nope, because what was never captured cannot be lost via compression
and what humans can perceive isn't what defines lossy/lossless.

"android" wrote

| The question can be put! Good in camera processing and lossless JPEGs...
| Will average Joe bother himself with RAW from his ILC then?
|
| http://www.canonwatch.com/meet-guetz...on-algoritm-th
| at-may-change-the-shape-of-the-internet/


I haven't seen anything about that being lossless.
They combined allegedly improved optimization with
improved compression to get a smaller file that
they claim is slightly better quality than regular
JPG. It's just a development for Web usage. Though
it's hard to see why it's so important. Many sites
now download multiple MBs of CSS and javascript
libraries, as well as fonts. The images are no longer
the big part.

I thought most cameras took TIFs as well as
JPG. Anyone who edits at all but doesn't
want to use RAW, could use TIF, no? JPG is
uniquely unsuitable for preserving image quality.
But most people taking pictures now are just
sending a quick shot from their phone. They're
not editing. For them, and for websites, JPG
combines small file size, universal compatibility
and no royalties.

"Mayayana" wrote

On a second reading I see that they say it's lossless
in the first paragraph. I wonder if they understand
what that means. My understanding is that it's just
a more efficient method to optimize quality for human
sight. And if you look at their own sample, the right
image (Guetzli-compressed) and left image,
uncompressed, have very different pixels. In other
words, they're doing a good job of fooling the eye
into not perceiving quality loss. They are *not*
preserving the original image bitmap, which is what
lossless formats do.

In article , Mayayana
wrote:

On a second reading I see that they say it's lossless
in the first paragraph. I wonder if they understand
what that means.

they don't.

it's less lossy than before (not that it's noticeable), but still lossy.

android wrote:
In article ,
David Taylor wrote:

On 20/03/2017 09:43, android wrote:
http://www.canonwatch.com/meet-guetz...on-algoritm-th
at-may-change-the-shape-of-the-internet/

The images he
http://www.canonwatch.com/wp-content...03/image01.png

show the algorithm not to be lossless.

Perhaps not but much better. From the :

"20x24 pixel zoomed areas from a picture of a cat s eye. Uncompressed
original on the left. Guetzli (on the right) shows less ringing
artefacts than libjpeg (middle) without requiring a larger file size."

However, there is already a
lossless JPEG, so why invent a new one? Available in 8-bit and 12-bit
versions IIRC. 12-bit JPEG 2000 is used for some satellite data to
reduce bandwidth.

There was this 30% save on filesize/bandwidth too. And it works with the
plain JPG extension without invoking the JP2.

There's PNG too, which is also lossless.

PNGs do unfortunately not carry much metadata. Won't do EXIF...

That is simply untrue. PNG images can have just as much Exif data
as a JPEG image, or a RAW file.

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/
Utqiagvik (Barrow, Alaska)