Will Lossless JPEGs kill Camera RAW?

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/

http://tinyurl.com/kapexnj
--
teleportation kills

In article , android
wrote:

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

it's not lossless.

Will average Joe bother himself with RAW from his ILC then?

average joes don't shoot raw.

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

The algorithm may literally reduce the size of the Internet, and
that¹s no joke.

yes it is.

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!

Will average Joe bother himself with RAW from his ILC then?

average joes don't shoot raw.

Have you asked all of them???

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

The algorithm may literally reduce the size of the Internet, and
that¹s no joke.

yes it is.

Oki... Reducing it's expansion rate then?
--
teleportation kills

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. 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's PNG too, which is also lossless.
--
Cheers,
David
Web: http://www.satsignal.eu

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
which colours and details to keep and which to *throw* *away* = lossy
*approximates* colour perception and visual masking... = lossy

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...
--
teleportation kills

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.

I was referring to the article.
--
teleportation kills

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 caption:

"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...
--
teleportation kills

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.

I was referring to the article.

so was i.

the article was rubbish.

anyone that writes,
The algorithm may literally reduce the size of the Internet, and
that¹s no joke.

is a blithering idiot.

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-technology/2017/03/google-jpeg-guetzli-encoder-file-size/

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

--
best regards,

Neil