7 ms·
Not sure what the objective is, but using the "before" example 475kb lena pic, a subsequent jpg at 61k looks very close to the original, and much better than th
by GravityWell 13y ago
Not sure what the objective is, but using the "before" example 475kb lena pic, a subsequent jpg at 61k looks very close to the original, and much better than the 61k blurred png.
There is a reason why jpg has survived the test of time. It delivers a good balance of quality, performance, and is well supported. Challengers like JPEG 2000 have not gained much traction because jpg gets the job done.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JPEG_2000 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JPEG_2000
- pornel 13y agoJPEG is very good indeed, but it can't compete when transparency is needed. I've chosen Lenna as an example image because it's a classic, rather than as an example where lossy PNG can't be beaten. But take any transparent image from Apple.com, and you can halve its size: http://imgur.com/a/VLlqG http://imgur.com/a/VLlqG (and images from pngquant2 are even smaller, but there are few that become too lossy).
- graue 13y agoThis should be in your article! :) It motivates the technique much better.
- homosaur 13y agoJPEG has no transparency support, for one
- adrianN 13y agoI thought the main reason why JPEG2000 was not widely adopted is its problematic patent status.