News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Introducing the ‘mozjpeg’ Project. Parent comment

Re:Introducing the ‘mozjpeg’ Project by e12e on Thursday March 06, 2014 @01:03AM (#7352166)
It's different from something like mjpeg. More like the jpeg2000 format used by digital (4k) cinema[1].

For web cams, where you might not want true "live" video but prefer higher resolution still frames, it sounds like a reasonable choice.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Cinema_Package

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Introducing the ‘mozjpeg’ Project by pavlov on Thursday March 06, 2014 @07:24AM (#7353236)
There's no fundamental difference between MJPEG and streaming a sequence of independent JPEG files over HTTP.

The MJPEG format doesn't really exist anymore: it was designed in the '90s to account for interlaced video content, but that's a rare breed nowadays. For progressive video, Photo-JPEG is equivalent.

Many popular intraframe video codecs are basically the JPEG algorithm with some modifications for specific pixel formats and some custom metadata. These include Apple ProRes, Avid DNxHD and the stalwart DV format (as in MiniDV tapes).

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Introducing the ‘mozjpeg’ Project by e12e on Thursday March 06, 2014 @03:18PM (#7356305)
My bad, I thought mjpeg was a keyframe based format.
[ Parent | on HN ]