Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 56

Thread: Lossless Photo Compression Benchmark

  1. #1
    Member Alexander Rhatushnyak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    237
    Thanks
    39
    Thanked 92 Times in 48 Posts

    Lossless Photo Compression Benchmark

    LPCB is here now: http://qlic.altervista.org/LPCB.html

    FLIF was added recently,
    next week perhaps BPG and latest WebP,
    what else should be tested and added?

    This newsgroup is dedicated to image compression:
    http://linkedin.com/groups/Image-Compression-3363256

  2. Thanks:

    JamesWasil (4th January 2018)

  3. #2
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Stuttgart
    Posts
    448
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked 101 Times in 61 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Alexander Rhatushnyak View Post
    what else should be tested and added?
    The important and used algorithms? (-; Seriously, there are quite some lossless compressors out in the wild that are in common use: * JPEG predictive lossless * JPEG LS, JPEG LS part 2 * JPEG 2000 lossless * JPEG XT part 8

  4. #3
    Member Alexander Rhatushnyak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    237
    Thanks
    39
    Thanked 92 Times in 48 Posts
    * JPEG predictive lossless * JPEG LS * JPEG 2000 lossless

    Are already there, since 2011 mostly. More info is welcome.

    * JPEG XT part 8

    Not 100% sure what this is, but when I tested JPEG XT released on 30/06/2015, it performed exactly as Quo Vadis JPEG, at least with '-c -ls'.
    For XT part 8, and JPEG LS part 2, could you please provide links to source code and/or executables?

    This newsgroup is dedicated to image compression:
    http://linkedin.com/groups/Image-Compression-3363256

  5. #4
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Stuttgart
    Posts
    448
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked 101 Times in 61 Posts
    double post, removed.
    Last edited by thorfdbg; 12th October 2015 at 12:03.

  6. #5
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Stuttgart
    Posts
    448
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked 101 Times in 61 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Alexander Rhatushnyak View Post
    * JPEG XT part 8 Not 100% sure what this is, but when I tested JPEG XT released on 30/06/2015, it performed exactly as Quo Vadis JPEG, at least with '-c -ls'. For XT part 8, and JPEG LS part 2, could you please provide links to source code and/or executables?
    JPEG XT part 8 is our new JPEG standard. It is implemented by the JPEG XT reference software you find on www.jpeg.org. You run it with the JPEG XT reference software you already have, with the options "-r -q base quality -Q 100 -h". JPEG LS part 2 is JPEG LS with color decorrelation enabled. It is also implemented in the JPEG XT reference software, but *only* in the GPL'd version, so make sure you get the correct one. For that, run it with the command line option "-ls 1 -cls" (or -ls 'something' if you want to try other coding modes than the line-interleaved mode). There is currently no implementation of the MQ-coder enabled JPEG LS part 2, unfortunately, even though it is standardized.

  7. #6
    Member Alexander Rhatushnyak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    237
    Thanks
    39
    Thanked 92 Times in 48 Posts
    > -r -q base quality -Q 100 -h

    Thank you Thomas!
    What base quality value works best on photographic images?
    Also, which of the following should I try to improve compression ratio and/or speed:
    -a
    -ra
    -rl
    -rs
    -rv
    -other?
    Which options are helpful together with '-ls N -cls' ?
    Are options printed by jpeg-jpl.exe sorted in chronological order?

    This newsgroup is dedicated to image compression:
    http://linkedin.com/groups/Image-Compression-3363256

  8. #7
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Stuttgart
    Posts
    448
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked 101 Times in 61 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Alexander Rhatushnyak View Post
    > -r -q base quality -Q 100 -h Thank you Thomas! What base quality value works best on photographic images?
    It is of course image-dependent with complex content requiring lower values for ideal compression, but you do not make much of an error by picking a number like 85 here by default.
    Quote Originally Posted by Alexander Rhatushnyak View Post
    Also, which of the following should I try to improve compression ratio and/or speed: -a
    Arithmetic coding is *outside* of JPEG XT. The code supports it, placeholders for arithmetic coding are in the standard, but it is officially not part of JPEG XT. It is a related codec the source code implements. So, "-a" and "-ar" are something you may want to try, but please do not name it "JPEG XT". "-ar" is something else, for the alpha channel, which we do not have here. "-ra" is arithemtic coding for the residual, yes.
    Quote Originally Posted by Alexander Rhatushnyak View Post
    -rl
    Will usually not give you better compression, but your milage may vary.
    Quote Originally Posted by Alexander Rhatushnyak View Post
    -rs
    Usually not worth trying.
    Quote Originally Posted by Alexander Rhatushnyak View Post
    -rv
    That might be valuable because it puts the residual into progressive mode.
    Quote Originally Posted by Alexander Rhatushnyak View Post
    -other?
    -h should be present, unless arithmetic coding is on. There are a couple of options to improve subjective quality, but that's not very useful for lossless.
    Quote Originally Posted by Alexander Rhatushnyak View Post
    Which options are helpful together with '-ls N -cls' ?
    None, that's it. JPEG LS doesn't have anything else but that.
    Quote Originally Posted by Alexander Rhatushnyak View Post
    Are options printed by jpeg-jpl.exe sorted in chronological order?
    I would call that rather "random order", where I tried to sort them approximately by topic.

  9. #8
    Member Skymmer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Russia
    Posts
    681
    Thanks
    38
    Thanked 168 Times in 84 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Alexander Rhatushnyak View Post
    what else should be tested and added?
    I think it would be nice to retest Stuffit. Your tests performed with console_stuffEN.exe /c -o which is equal to console_stuffEN.exe /c -o --recompression-level=0
    --recompression-level option supports 3 levels. The results on PPM:
    Code:
    --recompression-level=0     1 079 684 543
    --recompression-level=1     1 048 870 928
    --recompression-level=2     1 044 760 134
    Also ZCM general purpose archiver detects graphic data and uses special model for it. Can be downloaded here: http://heartofcomp.altervista.org/zcm093.zip
    Code:
    Per-file     zcmx64.exe a -m8 -t1 output.zcm input.ppm    1 149 113 836
    Solid   zcmx64.exe a -s -m8 -t1 archive.zcm C:\data\*     1 148 833 050

  10. #9
    Member Alexander Rhatushnyak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    237
    Thanks
    39
    Thanked 92 Times in 48 Posts
    Skymmer,
    ZCM - okay, thank you,
    StuffIt with --recompression-level=1 - is it a lot slower than with 0 ? Is latest StuffIt faster than Deluxe 2010?

    Thomas,
    With -cls I get errors 1024 and 1038 (with and without -ls 1)
    With other variants:
    1290129169 - jpeg-gpl.exe -c -ls 0 %1.ppm %1.xt0
    1530194360 - jpeg-gpl.exe -l -c -q 100 -a %1.ppm %1.xt_l
    1681614121 - jpeg-gpl.exe -r -q 50 -Q 100 -a %1.ppm %1.xt_050
    1571180908 - jpeg-gpl.exe -r -q 80 -Q 100 -a %1.ppm %1.xt_080
    1541652761 - jpeg-gpl.exe -r -q 90 -Q 100 -a %1.ppm %1.xt_090
    1675104211 - jpeg-gpl.exe -r -q 100 -Q 100 -a %1.ppm %1.xt_100
    1557989434 - jpeg-gpl.exe -r -q 80 -Q 100 -a -rv %1.ppm %1.xt_080rv

    Note in the latter case, with -r ... -rv, it hanged quite often (a couple times on PIA images, also on Sony and two Fuji images), but restarting from the same image always helped.
    Last edited by Alexander Rhatushnyak; 12th October 2015 at 20:33.

    This newsgroup is dedicated to image compression:
    http://linkedin.com/groups/Image-Compression-3363256

  11. #10
    Member Skymmer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Russia
    Posts
    681
    Thanks
    38
    Thanked 168 Times in 84 Posts
    Well, the bad thing about StuffIt is that the latest version for Windows is 14.0.1 while MAC version is already 16.0.4 so I can't test it.
    14.0.1 = 14.0.1.27A = 2010SR2
    http://my.smithmicro.com/downloads/f...i-language.exe

    In console it gives: StuffIt Engine Version: 14.0.0.16
    DLL versions:
    Code:
    sitx.dll			14.0.2383.921
    stuffitengine.dll		14.0.0.16
    stuff.exe	                14.0.1.16
    As for speed:
    Code:
     STA13843.ppm (i7-2700K@4700)
    ------------------------------
    --recompression-level=0   138,851,089 -> 56,034,361: 40.35%. Cpu 4 mb/s (30.716 sec), real 4 mb/s (30.857 sec) = 99%. ram 374 MB, vmem 391 MB
    --recompression-level=1   138,851,089 -> 52,538,259: 37.83%. Cpu 2 mb/s (62.790 sec), real 2 mb/s (62.930 sec) = 99%. ram 374 MB, vmem 392 MB
    --recompression-level=2   138,851,089 -> 52,182,019: 37.58%. Cpu 1 mb/s (79.887 sec), real 1 mb/s (80.028 sec) = 99%. ram 375 MB, vmem 393 MB

  12. #11
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Stuttgart
    Posts
    448
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked 101 Times in 61 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Alexander Rhatushnyak View Post
    Note in the latter case, with -r ... -rv, it hanged quite often (a couple times on PIA images, also on Sony and two Fuji images), but restarting from the same image always helped.
    Actually, I believe I tested this quite a bit, but anyhow... if you have an image where you found hangs, could you please forward me the image where you observed the hand so I could reproduce the problem? Thanks, Thomas

  13. #12
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Stuttgart
    Posts
    448
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked 101 Times in 61 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Alexander Rhatushnyak View Post
    S With -cls I get errors 1024 and 1038 (with and without -ls 1)
    That's a bug in the earlier version. We need to put on a newer version this meeting. For a fix, please go into the file colortrafo/colortransformerfactory.cpp, in line 287 (or around that), you should have an "if" statement saying: if (ltrafo == MergingSpecBox::JPEG_LS && ocflags == 0) { this should be replaced by: if (ltrafo == MergingSpecBox::JPEG_LS) { and it should work. Sorry for that. It's really not part of XT and hence has not been tested too much for the last version.

  14. #13
    Member Alexander Rhatushnyak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    237
    Thanks
    39
    Thanked 92 Times in 48 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by thorfdbg View Post
    could you please forward me the image where you observed the hand so I could reproduce the problem?
    Please run the script from the attached archive. Does it always print to stdout until you stop it?
    As far as I can see, without '-rv' it does, with '-rv' it stops quite soon.
    Attached Files Attached Files

    This newsgroup is dedicated to image compression:
    http://linkedin.com/groups/Image-Compression-3363256

  15. #14
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Stuttgart
    Posts
    448
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked 101 Times in 61 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Alexander Rhatushnyak View Post
    Please run the script from the attached archive. Does it always print to stdout until you stop it? As far as I can see, without '-rv' it does, with '-rv' it stops quite soon.
    Yes, residual progressive arithmetic still does not yet define enough contexts to allow encoding or decoding. As said, the standard has nothing there, so the encoding necessarily fails - or rather locks up in this particular case. Yes, I could come up with a encoding scheme here, but it's all outside of XT anyhow.

  16. #15
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Stuttgart
    Posts
    448
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked 101 Times in 61 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Alexander Rhatushnyak View Post
    Please run the script from the attached archive. Does it always print to stdout until you stop it? As far as I can see, without '-rv' it does, with '-rv' it stops quite soon.
    Fixed software, with a number of additional fixes, is now on www.jpeg.org. Thanks!

  17. #16
    Member Alexander Rhatushnyak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    237
    Thanks
    39
    Thanked 92 Times in 48 Posts
    Thank you Thomas! Why no Windows Binary this time?

    BTW, if someone could build and attach a Win32 exe of BPG 0.9.6, that would be helpful.

    This newsgroup is dedicated to image compression:
    http://linkedin.com/groups/Image-Compression-3363256

  18. #17
    Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Italy
    Posts
    243
    Thanks
    104
    Thanked 144 Times in 105 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Alexander Rhatushnyak View Post
    BTW, if someone could build and attach a Win32 exe of BPG 0.9.6, that would be helpful.
    I had a look at the README in libbpg-0.9.6.tar.gz found here.
    There is written the following:
    Code:
    2.2) Windows
    ------------
    
      - Only cross-compilation from Linux is supported.
      - The following packages need to be installed: mingw64-gcc
        mingw64-libpng mingw64-libjpeg-turbo mingw64-SDL mingw64-SDL_image
        yasm. It is recommended to use yasm version >= 1.3.0 to have a
        faster compilation.
      - Only a 64 bit target is supported because x265 needs it for bit
        depths > 8.
    In the same page, there is a binary distribution for Windows 64 bit.

    EDIT: it seems that for depth = 8 there is no need for 64 bit and it can be compiled for 32 bit, however I don't know how to do it and if it is possible.
    Last edited by Mauro Vezzosi; 17th October 2015 at 18:38.

  19. #18
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    France
    Posts
    98
    Thanks
    13
    Thanked 74 Times in 44 Posts
    Hello,

    BPG tools 0.9.6 binaries (MSYS2/gcc 5.2.0 win32, no 10/12 bit for x265, jctvc encoder included), not (99.99999%) tested, be warned.
    bpg-0.9.6-win32.7z

    Really, I have only tested on one picture that bpgenc, bpgdec & bpgview were at least running. Use them at your own risk.

    AiZ

  20. Thanks:

    Alexander Rhatushnyak (17th October 2015)

  21. #19
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Stuttgart
    Posts
    448
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked 101 Times in 61 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Alexander Rhatushnyak View Post
    Thank you Thomas! Why no Windows Binary this time?
    We updated during the Brussels meeting, and I haven't had access to a windows machine there. I'll check whether we can make another update next week with binaries.

  22. #20
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    France
    Posts
    98
    Thanks
    13
    Thanked 74 Times in 44 Posts
    Hello,

    Just for fun, I have updated jctvc encoder in bpgenc to the latest version (HM-16.7). Encoded files size is slightly bigger than with vanilla 0.9.6, which comes with HM-16.2.
    bpgenc-0.9.6-win32-HM-16.7.7z

    @Alexander, if you prefer single-threaded encoding, jctvc can float your boat. It will take ages to encode your test data but you'll get (much?) better compressed size.

    AiZ

  23. #21
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    France
    Posts
    98
    Thanks
    13
    Thanked 74 Times in 44 Posts
    Hi,

    FYI, with 0.9.6 using jctvc HM-16.7 encoder, total is 1,308,731,065 bytes.
    Code:
    19/10/2015       12,078,319 canon_eos_1100d_01.bpg
    19/10/2015       13,400,062 canon_eos_1100d_02.bpg
    19/10/2015       11,806,351 canon_eos_1100d_03.bpg
    19/10/2015       13,485,763 canon_eos_1100d_04.bpg
    19/10/2015       12,240,401 canon_eos_1100d_05.bpg
    19/10/2015       12,530,198 canon_eos_1100d_06.bpg
    19/10/2015       15,302,535 canon_eos_1100d_11.bpg
    19/10/2015       12,745,914 canon_eos_1100d_12.bpg
    19/10/2015       14,183,755 canon_eos_1100d_13.bpg
    19/10/2015       15,472,011 canon_eos_1100d_14.bpg
    19/10/2015       12,163,363 canon_eos_1100d_15.bpg
    19/10/2015       12,129,737 fujifilm_finepix_x100_01.bpg
    19/10/2015       11,756,740 fujifilm_finepix_x100_02.bpg
    19/10/2015        9,785,327 fujifilm_finepix_x100_03.bpg
    19/10/2015       11,398,392 fujifilm_finepix_x100_04.bpg
    19/10/2015       13,362,759 fujifilm_finepix_x100_05.bpg
    19/10/2015       10,344,420 fujifilm_finepix_x100_06.bpg
    19/10/2015        9,774,284 fujifilm_finepix_x100_10.bpg
    19/10/2015       11,486,791 fujifilm_finepix_x100_11.bpg
    19/10/2015       11,675,519 fujifilm_finepix_x100_12.bpg
    19/10/2015       12,767,392 fujifilm_finepix_x100_13.bpg
    19/10/2015       11,249,448 fujifilm_finepix_x100_14.bpg
    19/10/2015       14,128,028 fujifilm_finepix_x100_15.bpg
    19/10/2015       10,495,891 olympus_xz1_01.bpg
    19/10/2015       10,076,068 olympus_xz1_02.bpg
    19/10/2015       11,237,290 olympus_xz1_03.bpg
    19/10/2015       11,025,108 olympus_xz1_04.bpg
    19/10/2015       10,936,337 olympus_xz1_05.bpg
    19/10/2015       11,460,803 olympus_xz1_06.bpg
    19/10/2015       11,461,773 olympus_xz1_07.bpg
    19/10/2015       10,925,086 olympus_xz1_08.bpg
    19/10/2015       12,063,986 olympus_xz1_09.bpg
    19/10/2015       10,252,763 olympus_xz1_10.bpg
    19/10/2015       11,844,284 olympus_xz1_11.bpg
    19/10/2015       12,578,485 olympus_xz1_12.bpg
    19/10/2015       12,015,226 olympus_xz1_13.bpg
    19/10/2015       14,381,807 olympus_xz1_14.bpg
    19/10/2015       14,388,001 olympus_xz1_15.bpg
    19/10/2015        9,587,309 olympus_xz1_16.bpg
    19/10/2015       13,689,804 olympus_xz1_17.bpg
    19/10/2015       11,502,903 olympus_xz1_18.bpg
    19/10/2015       11,700,272 olympus_xz1_19.bpg
    19/10/2015       19,019,779 olympus_xz1_20.bpg
    19/10/2015       19,675,083 olympus_xz1_21.bpg
    19/10/2015       18,964,849 olympus_xz1_22.bpg
    19/10/2015       10,860,414 olympus_xz1_23.bpg
    19/10/2015       14,273,547 olympus_xz1_24.bpg
    19/10/2015       14,063,266 olympus_xz1_25.bpg
    19/10/2015       14,318,926 olympus_xz1_26.bpg
    19/10/2015       15,731,023 olympus_xz1_27.bpg
    19/10/2015          286,179 PIA12811.bpg
    19/10/2015          546,124 PIA12813.bpg
    19/10/2015       11,384,166 PIA13757.bpg
    19/10/2015          323,059 PIA13779.bpg
    19/10/2015        2,290,074 PIA13785.bpg
    19/10/2015          239,835 PIA13799.bpg
    19/10/2015        7,198,115 PIA13803.bpg
    19/10/2015        7,508,271 PIA13810.bpg
    19/10/2015        1,968,928 PIA13812.bpg
    19/10/2015        1,971,217 PIA13815.bpg
    19/10/2015        1,520,045 PIA13833.bpg
    19/10/2015          289,051 PIA13855.bpg
    19/10/2015          289,870 PIA13856.bpg
    19/10/2015          321,533 PIA13857.bpg
    19/10/2015          229,817 PIA13859.bpg
    19/10/2015          170,370 PIA13862.bpg
    19/10/2015          420,864 PIA13872.bpg
    19/10/2015        3,545,314 PIA13882.bpg
    19/10/2015          227,749 PIA13891.bpg
    19/10/2015        7,359,201 PIA13894.bpg
    19/10/2015       34,555,831 PIA13912.bpg
    19/10/2015          462,116 PIA13913.bpg
    19/10/2015        1,285,399 PIA13914.bpg
    19/10/2015       18,355,894 PIA13915.bpg
    19/10/2015          517,676 PIA13943.bpg
    19/10/2015       15,247,734 sony_a55_01.bpg
    19/10/2015       15,712,951 sony_a55_02.bpg
    19/10/2015       22,830,657 sony_a55_03.bpg
    19/10/2015       22,135,471 sony_a55_04.bpg
    19/10/2015       23,276,464 sony_a55_05.bpg
    19/10/2015       14,945,046 sony_a55_06.bpg
    19/10/2015       14,936,236 sony_a55_07.bpg
    19/10/2015       15,702,629 sony_a55_08.bpg
    19/10/2015       16,911,012 sony_a55_09.bpg
    19/10/2015       20,700,438 sony_a55_10.bpg
    19/10/2015       36,402,450 sony_a55_11.bpg
    19/10/2015       17,573,106 sony_a55_15.bpg
    19/10/2015       18,892,977 STA13452.bpg
    19/10/2015       19,320,332 STA13453.bpg
    19/10/2015       20,404,639 STA13454.bpg
    19/10/2015       10,933,724 STA13455.bpg
    19/10/2015        1,269,628 STA13456.bpg
    19/10/2015       13,057,952 STA13457.bpg
    19/10/2015        3,733,175 STA13458.bpg
    19/10/2015       12,216,123 STA13459.bpg
    19/10/2015        7,554,120 STA13771.bpg
    19/10/2015          713,615 STA13781.bpg
    19/10/2015        1,663,624 STA13782.bpg
    19/10/2015        3,904,058 STA13789.bpg
    19/10/2015       69,403,942 STA13843.bpg
    19/10/2015       62,366,745 STA13844.bpg
    19/10/2015       64,014,693 STA13845.bpg
    19/10/2015        2,311,387 STA13900.bpg
    19/10/2015        2,137,407 STA13901.bpg
    19/10/2015       12,426,207 STA13904.bpg
    19/10/2015        7,517,206 STA13908.bpg
    19/10/2015        1,451,027 STA13942.bpg
     107 Files(s) 1,308,731,065 bytes
    AiZ

  24. #22
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Stuttgart
    Posts
    448
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked 101 Times in 61 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Alexander Rhatushnyak View Post
    Thank you Thomas! Why no Windows Binary this time?

    BTW, if someone could build and attach a Win32 exe of BPG 0.9.6, that would be helpful.
    Thanks for the pointer, windows binaries are now again available at www.jpeg.org.

    I also updated the github version at https://github.com/thorfdbg/libjpeg. This is the GPL'd version, i.e. with all of JPEG, JPEG LS and hierarchical support, but without profiles A and B.

    It is *a tiny little bit* ahead of the official version, though nothing that affects JPEG LS or lossless JPEG.

  25. #23
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Location
    Belgium
    Posts
    29
    Thanks
    9
    Thanked 10 Times in 8 Posts
    Did you try flif in default mode (interlaced, without the -n) ?

    The version of flif currently on github is probably somewhat worse in terms of compression but also faster...

  26. #24
    Member Alexander Rhatushnyak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    237
    Thanks
    39
    Thanked 92 Times in 48 Posts
    Jon, yes I tried, and compressed size was not better than with -n.
    How much faster?

    By the way, LPCB was updated yesterday.

    This newsgroup is dedicated to image compression:
    http://linkedin.com/groups/Image-Compression-3363256

  27. #25
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    France
    Posts
    98
    Thanks
    13
    Thanked 74 Times in 44 Posts
    WebP 0.4.4 is out.

  28. #26
    Member Alexander Rhatushnyak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    237
    Thanks
    39
    Thanked 92 Times in 48 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by AiZ View Post
    WebP 0.4.4 is out.
    On LPCB images:
    1240350758 --- cwebp -m 0
    1231054814 --- cwebp -m 6 (also -m 5 and -preset photo -m 6)

    If we losslessly compress the only image in the WebP 0.4.4 package:
    49167 test_ref.ppm
    23889 test_ref.png
    17365 test_ref.flif-i
    16435 test_ref.flif-n-a
    16435 test_ref.flif-n
    15054 test_ref.webp044-m6
    14958 test_ref.webp044-m4
    14422 test_ref.flif-n-b
    12860 test_ref.bmf
    12560 test_ref.gralic111d

    UPDATE:
    1436811364 --- GCIF
    Last edited by Alexander Rhatushnyak; 1st November 2015 at 15:42. Reason: gcif

    This newsgroup is dedicated to image compression:
    http://linkedin.com/groups/Image-Compression-3363256

  29. Thanks:

    Jyrki Alakuijala (3rd May 2016)

  30. #27
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Location
    Turkey
    Posts
    1
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Hi Alexander,

    What compressor do you use the while creating your LPCB ? Your own compressor ? JPEG -LS ?

    King Regards,

  31. #28
    Member Alexander Rhatushnyak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    237
    Thanks
    39
    Thanked 92 Times in 48 Posts
    The latest version 125 of paq8px compresses LPCB images to 972'632'649 bytes with switch -8,
    and the latest version 0.1.25 of EMMA to 973'965'877 bytes with C 7.

    Many compressors including paq8px, Emma, FLIF and GraLIC
    have switches that improve compressed size in some cases,
    but to be eligible for LPCB, a compressor must produce one output file
    for each input file, and the switch(es) must be the same for all test images.

    This newsgroup is dedicated to image compression:
    http://linkedin.com/groups/Image-Compression-3363256

  32. #29
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    Switzerland
    Posts
    699
    Thanks
    210
    Thanked 265 Times in 157 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Alexander Rhatushnyak View Post
    Many compressors including paq8px, Emma, FLIF and GraLIC
    have switches that improve compressed size in some cases,
    but to be eligible for LPCB, a compressor must produce one output file
    for each input file, and the switch(es) must be the same for all test images.
    For WebP 0.6.1 you can use '-q 100 -m 6' to invoke the cruncher more that tries out a few strategies and takes the best. The lossless got about 1.5 % more dense in WebP 0.5 and a further 1-2 % with 0.6.1.

    https://github.com/webmproject/libwe...ses/tag/v0.6.1 (cruncher mode)
    https://github.com/webmproject/libwe...ses/tag/v0.5.0 (fixes for density related bugs with grayscale lossless compression)

  33. #30
    Member Alexander Rhatushnyak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    237
    Thanks
    39
    Thanked 92 Times in 48 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Jyrki Alakuijala View Post
    1'194'936'668 bytes -- webp -lossless -q 100 -m 6
    1'222'290'070 bytes -- webp -lossless -q 100
    1'128'702'803 bytes -- flif -e -N
    1'283'324'851 bytes -- flif -e -N --effort=0
    1'126'954'659 bytes -- flif -e -N --effort=100

    This newsgroup is dedicated to image compression:
    http://linkedin.com/groups/Image-Compression-3363256

  34. Thanks:

    Jyrki Alakuijala (27th December 2017)

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Sac: (State-of-the-Art) Lossless Audio Compression
    By Sebastian in forum Data Compression
    Replies: 55
    Last Post: 12th November 2019, 12:24
  2. Unknown Moscow - Photo Gallery
    By encode in forum The Off-Topic Lounge
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 23rd October 2013, 15:41
  3. .bik no lossless compression?
    By Tidro in forum Data Compression
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 4th September 2013, 19:39
  4. iz: New fast lossless RGB photo compression
    By cfeck in forum Data Compression
    Replies: 63
    Last Post: 4th December 2012, 12:21
  5. lossless data compression
    By SLS in forum Data Compression
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: 15th March 2011, 12:35

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •