If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Will Lossless JPEGs kill Camera RAW?
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 |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Will Lossless JPEGs kill Camera RAW?
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 |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Will Lossless JPEGs kill Camera RAW?
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. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Will Lossless JPEGs kill Camera RAW?
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 |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Will Lossless JPEGs kill Camera RAW?
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. |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Will Lossless JPEGs kill Camera RAW?
"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. |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Will Lossless JPEGs kill Camera RAW?
"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. |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Will Lossless JPEGs kill Camera RAW?
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. |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Will Lossless JPEGs kill Camera RAW?
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) |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
'extra' lossless compression for camera raw images | Sachin Garg[_2_] | Digital Photography | 12 | July 8th 08 06:57 PM |
'extra' lossless compression for camera raw images | Sachin Garg[_2_] | Digital SLR Cameras | 8 | July 7th 08 05:20 PM |
'extra' lossless compression for camera raw images | Sachin Garg[_2_] | Digital SLR Cameras | 50 | March 25th 08 10:40 PM |
question about using jpegtran for lossless compression of jpegs | [email protected] | Digital Photography | 4 | October 24th 06 10:55 AM |
batch lossless auto-rotate jpegs | JC Dill | Digital Photography | 3 | March 22nd 06 05:31 PM |