jpeg Options

[kotrtim]

Are there any free good JPEG encoder
The JPEG encoder in ACDSee is really pinkish and dull.
Is JPEG like mp3, different encoder with diffferent qualities?

In tiff image, there's an option to compress it in JPEG compression, I like that one
Its compression quality is the best compared to ACDsee, Windows Paint, MGI photo suite.
but I've tried to change the xtention from .tif to .jpg
It won't work, no browser can open that tiff jpeg.


Encoder + settings
ACDSee JPEG q82
Tiff JPEG



I've uploaded the picture samples (picture.zip) (85 kb) here

http://kotrtim.tripod.com/pictures.htm


Thanks

[rjamorim]

Is JPEG like mp3, different encoder with diffferent qualities?

Yes. Probably the best is from Pegasus (www.jpg.com), but I never saw any kind of comparision test. It's just that they have lots of fame.

The JPEG encoder in ACDSee is really pinkish and dull.

The encoder in ACDsee is based on the Intel JPEG library. It's known for being extremely fast, not highest quality.

In tiff image, there's an option to compress it in JPEG compression, I like  that one

The TIFF compressor probably uses the Adobe JPEG library (it's the one in the TIFF SDK), so you would probably get the same quality using PhotoShop.

but I've tried to change the xtention from .tif to .jpg
It won't work, no browser can open that tiff jpeg.

Right, because it's a JPEG inside a TIFF. It's like an MP3 inside an AVI, you won't be able to open it with Foobar. You would have to unwrap first.

Regards;

Roberto.

[Andavari]

The freeware IrfanView http://www.irfanview.com/ can save JPEG images based on your own quality settings that MS Paint and web browsers can view. However, there are some image viewers/editors that cannot open IrfanView saved JPEG images.

[kotrtim]

Irfanview JPEG

Is this the best encoder?

Thanks


Edit 1 : Thanks roberto for informing me about Adobe.

Adobe photoshop -q 10 (10kb) beats intel q 82 (ACD) (13kb) even beats tiffs jpeg (13 kb)

My first conclution is
Adobe = LAME
Intel = Xing


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Edit 2 : Andarvi, IrfanView JPEG is similar to ACD's, dull + pinkish, Adobe is still the best
installing JP2 plugin, can't wait to test it!

This post has been edited by kotrtim: May 17 2003, 08:24

[userXYZ]

JPEG2000 is really good, but most applications won't be able to open these files.

[rjamorim]

My first conclution is
Adobe = LAME
Intel = Xing

hehe. It's not that extreme, but yeah, Adobe rocks. Always.

IrfanView is shit. The developer uses aspack to "protect" his program, for that reason alone he should be flamed to death.

I hacked that $#%$@! protection (heh), and found strings that lead me to believe it's using either Intel or IJG. Not good.

(sorry if I got kinda ballistic, exe crypting always reminds me of trojans and Astrid AAC <shudder>)

[kotrtim]

JPEG2000 is really good, but most applications won't be able to open these files.

Like what Roberto said SHIT
the JP2 compression is 10x worst than nomal JPEG
jp2 lossless 2x larger file than PNG
A total crap, at least the one in InfraView

But I like the PNG config. in IfraView, its compression slightly better than ACDSee PNG

[userXYZ]

JPEG2000 is really good, but most applications won't be able to open these files.

Like what Roberto said SHIT
the JP2 compression is 10x worst than nomal JPEG
jp2 lossless 2x larger file than PNG
A total crap, at least the one in InfraView

But I like the PNG config. in IfraView, its compression slightly better than ACDSee PNG

Is it really shit? I used it one or two times in the past and from what I remembered it was good but useless because it couldn't be opened by most applications. Why don't you just use PNG? The PNG-Compression of The Gimp is said to be very good! But forget the PNG-Compression in Photoshop!

Edited some typos

This post has been edited by userXYZ: May 17 2003, 09:59

[rjamorim]

Like what Roberto said SHIT
the JP2 compression is 10x worst than nomal JPEG
jp2 lossless 2x larger file than PNG
A total crap, at least the one in InfraView

Hrm... that's kinda tricky.

I just decrypted and checked the JPEG2000 plugin (holy damn, that freak encrypts everything!), and it's clearly displayed that the Jpeg2000 SDK vendor is LuraTech, that is a well-known vendor of graphical solutions.

My only guess id that they are offering a crippled "free" version with IrfanView, since they are selling commercial versions of this and other plugins at their site.

But you are true to some extent. JPEG2000 vs. JPEG is kinda like MP3pro vs. MP3. JPEG2000 performs well where JPEG starts failing, at very big compression levels, but as the compressed files get bigger, it's tendency is to perform even worse than standard JPEG.

Regards;

Roberto.

[kotrtim]

Intel JPEG is never transparent even at quality 100

Original bmp = 93.8 kb

Intel JPEG q 100 = 29.9 kb (not pinkish anymore but very very very...... dull)

Adobe JPEG -q 10 progrssive scan 5 = 24.28 kb (transparent)


For me,
Adobe -q 6 or -q 7 is equal to Intel's -q 100

Adobe -q 6 = 14.25 kb

Adobe -q 7 = 14.79 kb

Its more like personal taste, non of them is transparent
Its like LAME vs FhG 128 kbps
I prefered Adobe's -q 7 over Intel's -q 100

Is JP2 in InfranView a good one? or are there any good, shareware is also ok coz
I'm curiouss about jp2

WMF, anyone knows how to encode .bmp to .wmf
thanks.

This post has been edited by kotrtim: May 17 2003, 10:43

[fragtal]

JPEG2000 is really good, but most applications won't be able to open these files.

Like what Roberto said SHIT
the JP2 compression is 10x worst than nomal JPEG
jp2 lossless 2x larger file than PNG
A total crap, at least the one in InfraView

But I like the PNG config. in IfraView, its compression slightly better than ACDSee PNG

One or two months ago there has already been the same type of discussion:

PNG vs GIF/JPG, (any freeware converters around?)

This is what floyd wrote:

I just did a small test, slightly OT, but interesting for image compression. 60 1024x768 TGA images (screenshots from a 3d game) compressed to different formats:

TGA originals: 138mb
PNG q=9: 53mb
JPG q=100: 25mb
JPEG2000 lossless: 43mb
JPEG2000 q=95 (default): 4mb !!
JPEG2000 q=100 : 21mb

Quality: jpg is noticeably different from the original sitting a reasonable distance from the display. Blurs certain objects, and seemingly the colour red more often than others.

jp2 at q=95 is not noticeably different unless you either zoom or move very close to the display, where you notice everything is very slightly blurred/altered.

jp2 at q=100 I couldn't tell the difference even at close distance, and eyestrain made me quit trying. I would say virtually lossless, at least on the pics I tried. The filesize difference between q=95 and q=100 is very strange though... I would use q=95 or even lower myself as the artifacts aren't ugly like jpg produces and the filesizes are great.

As for speed jpg and png are extremely fast to encode, whereas jp2 lossless is very, very slow to encode and jp2 lossy is somewhere inbetween.

Overall jp2 is very impressive. Hopefully it gets natively supported by browsers sometime soon. (though I easily grabbed a Mozilla plugin) The lossless mode doesn't seem much better than the blazing fast, and free png, but jp2 lossy is a big leap from jpg.

[kotrtim]

Lossless image encoding
24-bit test

bliss.bmp        1,407
rar                  381
ace                    461
png                485
sit                  544
7zip                  584

sit is out

original bmp        3,601
png                  895
rar                      942
7zip                    991
ace                    1,077

Again, ace is out

original bmp        2,305
rar                      673
7zip                    789
png                  799

256 color/ 8-bit grey test

original              470
ace                    176
rar                  200
7zip                219
png                263

24-bit, grey, captured text doc. as bmp (rarely occupied)

original            1,409
rar                      41
7zip                    55
png                    99

I didn't test JP2 coz I do not have the encoder to encode lossless JP2 for 640x480
EDIT: JP2 is the best lossless and rar is 2nd

ANYONE IS GOING TO MAKE A .ri, .rg maybe (rar imge/rar graphics)
support for softwares etc.

ATTENTION
for best rar compression

Colored 24-bit
Force Text Compression
Disable Audio Compression
Force True Color Compression

grayscale 8-bit/24-bit
Force Text Compression
Auto Audio Compression
Disable True Color Compression

I'M LAZY NOW
NEXT WEEK, I'LL TEST WILL BE 16-bit color and 8-bit color image

This post has been edited by kotrtim: May 18 2003, 06:22

[kotrtim]

One or two months ago there has already been the same type of discussion

That one is asking for converters
But know I'm asking for high quality JPEG encoder

[DonP]

Since you said free I would suggest GIMP (Gnu Image Manipulation Program). Its more of an editor (similar to Photoshop) than just a converter, but you may be able to script it to just convert withoug messing in the GUI.


www.gimp.org

[fragtal]

One or two months ago there has already been the same type of discussion

That one is asking for converters
But know I'm asking for high quality JPEG encoder

You claimed that png was better than jp2 and this is some kind of what-is-the-best-gfx-codec-discussion.

[Oge_user]

I think that JPEG 2000 is very good:





Yes, it's slower than normal JPEG but the result seems better..

[LocustFurnace]

give the program LviewPro a try.
it does Progessive Compression, Entropy optimization , if it helps.
been using it for 6 years or so. seems to compress tighter then others and still has a good look to pics.
im using an old version, nothing to fancy, just prefer it.

[ErikS]

I think that JPEG 2000 is very good:
[snip]
Yes, it's slower than normal JPEG but the result seems better.. 

Funny comparison... Would you belive me when I say that wma is metter than mpc, and show you a bunch of transcoded mp3 @ 128 kbit/s where one is wav->mp3, another is wma@160->mp3, the third is wma@64->mp3 and the last mpc@64->mp3? At least I wouldn't draw any conclusion about mpc's performance at high bitrates from such a test... (And it's at low compression ratios people say old Jpeg is better than Jpeg2000... Nobody here questioned Jpeg2000 at high ratios.)

[Canar]

(And it's at low compression ratios people say old Jpeg is better than Jpeg2000... Nobody here questioned Jpeg2000 at high ratios.)

I disagree. I can see the block artifacting in JPEG very easily, even at high bitrates. JPEG2000 doesn't do this, and thus I find it much more tolerable. I'm not sure whether or not JP2 reduces the size of the (probably Chrominance, I forget JPEG colour spacing) channels by 3/4, but I find this really annoying in JPEG. From the looks of things, it doesn't do this as much/at all.

This post has been edited by Canar: May 19 2003, 08:08

[Canar]

WMF, anyone knows how to encode .bmp to .wmf
thanks.

Impossible. .WMF is a vector format, .BMP is a raster format. Vector can be converted to raster, but not vice versa with any level of accuracy.

[kotrtim]

Oge_user
I've tried the jp2 of IrfanView
Its so terrible at 5 kb
I don't know how you make you pic. so clear

Only quality 99 is transparent for me
OK, JP2 is better than JPG in comp. ratio
But what blocking artifacts, Adobe JPEG is transparent for me at quality10

[EDIT]
Use a killer sample, Winamp2 default skin is good enough to kill all JPEG encoders, accept Adobe The "green fonts" in winamp skin is so difficult to encode and you will never get a transparent file with Intel JPEG 100% quality.

Now I have only 2 JPEG lib. one from Intel and one from Adobe, are there any other lib. besides these?

This post has been edited by kotrtim: May 19 2003, 07:42

[Canar]

But what blocking artifacts, Adobe JPEG is transparent for me at quality10

You don't have a large enough sample set. When dealing with anything with a "pure" background, blocking artifacts become very apparent. As you seem to have found out with the Winamp2 skin.

[rjamorim]

Now I have only 2 JPEG lib. one from Intel and one from Adobe, are there any other lib. besides these?

There's IJG, the one used on Gimp and most open source software.

[ErikS]

I disagree. I can see the block artifacting in JPEG very easily, even at high bitrates. JPEG2000 doesn't do this, and thus I find it much more tolerable. I'm not sure whether or not JP2 reduces the size of the (probably Chrominance, I forget JPEG colour spacing) channels by 3/4, but I find this really annoying in JPEG. From the looks of things, it doesn't do this as much/at all.

So what ratios are you talking about here? I must say I can't see any blocking effects in these two pictures below here. Sure, I can see some ringing and some colorations, but no blocks. And thats by the crappy hardware jpeg compressor in my cheap digicam. Can you see any blocks? (I tried to take pictures with a lot of clear sky and other low gradient areas...)

I confess to not beeing a vidofile - are you? (Btw, what's the corresponding word for audiofile when it comes to pictures and video?)


Oops, forgot the pictures

http://www.dtek.chalmers.se/~d99papa/DSCN0013.JPG
http://www.dtek.chalmers.se/~d99papa/DSCN0083.JPG

This post has been edited by ErikS: May 19 2003, 11:34

[Oge_user]

Oge_user
I've tried the jp2 of IrfanView
Its so terrible at 5 kb
I don't know how you make you pic. so clear

Only quality 99 is transparent for me
OK, JP2 is better than JPG in comp. ratio
But what blocking artifacts, Adobe JPEG is transparent for me at quality10

Do you know if the jp2 of Irfan View it's the definitve (and complete) version?

This post has been edited by Oge_user: May 19 2003, 13:05