And I'm sorry, but if that JPEG is showing artifacts like that it was simply miscompressed, likely deliberately. I repeat, there is absolutely no reason an image of there same byte count cannot look just fine on that screen. For goodness sake, just reduce the resolution if nothing else.
> For goodness sake, just reduce the resolution if nothing else.
Reducing the resolution would not work and is not the same thing. You would still get 8x8 DC blocks in a smaller JPEG at the same compression rate, and higher detail in the BPG. The BPG is provably better than the JPEG, and since you already know that and talked about it above, I'm a little confused by your argument.
More generally, doing visual comparisons of codecs is full of traps. Since quality often falls off rapidly at a certain point it's possible to show your codec off by choosing the exact point to compare to maximise the difference. This is almost certainly the case if you're comparing against jpeg and it's starting to totally fall apart.
It's not that it doesn't correctly show that one is worse than the other but it's probably not a good visual reflection of the true scale of the difference any more than ramping up the bitrate until everyone would think they are indistinguishable.
It is fair to point out that JPEG falls apart below a certain compression threshold while BPG doesn't, even if it's a little bit apples to oranges. I prefer the way @enriquito said it https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20419900 but I disagree with the hyperbolic claims in this thread that this comparison is outrageous or complete spin or cheating. It's a data point that has some actual merit, and BTW happens to agree with the other data points we have.
I mean, it's true that IF you do that, that h.265 will save you by having control over filtering. But that's not a fair comparison, at all.
The point is rather that you could make a passable image of this bitrate using the better codec. It opens up a new level of compression not possible with JPEG.
If you downsampled the JPEG enough to get the same bitrate without blocking artifacts, it would look like a blurry smear, which is better than a bunch of 8x8 flat blocks but not that much better.
Maybe it would be worth including an additional JPEG downsampled-compressed-decompressed-upsampled view. You’d be able to see that jumping through those hoops doesn’t really give satisfactory results.
This is simply not correct. Anyone can get a passable image with that bit size. You're trying to stipulate "image pixel size" as some kind of inviolate thing, when it's not in reality. In reality, web content authors don't do insane things with their compression settings (I mean seriously: how would you even produce this? Standard conversion tools, for obvious reasons, will never emit an image like this). This isn't a real argument. This is cheating.
> it would look like a blurry smear,
Assuming facts not in evidence. The image in h.265 is plenty smeary already, FWIW. I think we both know that if this were true, the spin in the link would have done that instead of cheating with macroblock resolution. But in fact the blurry smear looks just fine, so they had to cheat.
https://i.imgur.com/t8GWPxX.jpg
It looks like garbage. It would still look like garbage if you resized it to some different size and used the appropriate level of JPEG compression to get a 26 kb image. JPEG just isn’t good enough to make this image workable for 1300x900 pixel output using only 26 kb.
Sigh. Not like the garbage in the link above it doesn't. If this was the image in the link we all would have nodded and said "yup, looks about worth a doubling of byte count" and we'd all be in agreement.
Instead, the absurdist misencoded nonsense above gets thrown around as proof that BPG is some kind of revolutionary technology, and a bunch of us have to step in to debunk the silliness.
It's twice as efficient (roughly). Just say that and leave the spin.
I find it amazing that you seem to be adding in all sorts of nonsense about scaling images and filtering and such. It's not relevant to the discussion about at X filesize and res JPEG looks appalling and BPG looks pretty passable.
This is the widest distance between the two formats for sure, but if you want large hires images at very small file sizes BPG is a pretty nice format. As I go on to say the savings are outweighed by the cost of including the decoder plugin and the probably battery and memory cost this incurs.
That’s not true, this particular JPEG will not look smooth on a GPU. The visible blocks are 8x8 pixels, not 1 pixel. The blocks would still be blocky because the compression has reduced them to only the DC component. This means the JPEG decode would still decode large blocks into texture memory and the GPU would still render large blocks with a slight blur between the 1 pixel borders of the 8 pixel blocks.
> In practice... static content bandwidth is a mostly solved problem and no one cares, which is why we aren’t using BPG.
I don’t believe that’s true either. I don’t know what you mean about bandwidth being “solved”, but more data is more data. If everyone could reduce their static images today by 2x without thinking, I’m pretty sure they would. I would on my sites if I could. The reason that BPG (or any other format!) isn’t yet being used is lack of browser support and tools and licensing and consensus, not because nobody cares about bandwidth. If what you said is true, then JPEG & PNG would never be replaced, but it’s already starting to happen.