Re:Compressing Images Using Google’s Guetzli
by makapuf on Tuesday May 23, 2017 @06:20AM
(#14400125)
I find this article a bit poor.
It basically gives a few data points about the resulting image size for a few quality settings from an unknown source image already compressed in jpeg with unknown quality setting.
No example of perceptual quality degradation or screenshots (which would have been useful for a perceptual codec) besides him finding no and another person find very little difference.
No comparison to a standard jpeg compressor for the same image / quality. I'm curious : how does guetzli that compare to libjpeg ? libjpeg-turbo ? whatever photoshop is using ?) esp in size for the same quality on your image ?
the Arxiv paper is much better controlled on how the experiment went, but has few/no figures besides the fact that it's better: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1703.04416.pdf
It basically gives a few data points about the resulting image size for a few quality settings from an unknown source image already compressed in jpeg with unknown quality setting.
No example of perceptual quality degradation or screenshots (which would have been useful for a perceptual codec) besides him finding no and another person find very little difference.
No comparison to a standard jpeg compressor for the same image / quality. I'm curious : how does guetzli that compare to libjpeg ? libjpeg-turbo ? whatever photoshop is using ?) esp in size for the same quality on your image ?
I find the original blog post is better (having links and actual screenshots): https://research.googleblog.com/2017/03/announcing-guetzli-n...
the Arxiv paper is much better controlled on how the experiment went, but has few/no figures besides the fact that it's better: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1703.04416.pdf
EDIT : I find this article more complete : https://www.34sp.com/blog/speed-testing-googles-guetzli-jpeg...