Is JPEG like mp3, different encoder with diffferent qualities?

The JPEG encoder in ACDSee is really pinkish and dull.

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

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

My first conclution is
Adobe = LAME
Intel = Xing

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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

original              470
ace                    176
rar                  200
7zip                219
png                263

original            1,409
rar                      41
7zip                    55
png                    99

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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

Winamp2 default skin is good enough to kill all JPEG encoders, accept Adobe

Hey I was just wondering how good the built-in encoders are inside the digital cameras. It's really a pity that I haven't seen a camera that supports png (but there're ones supporting raw). I have been thinking I actually lose quality that I could tell even though I use high quality jpg setting...

Heh, I'd always regarded Irfanview as a good piece of freeware software, not knowing that the exe was encrypted. (Not that I, lowly end-user, care at all about that fact).
However, I still think it is excellent for viewing images (or do you know any other freeware, small, fast viewer that supports virtually every format?).

The tree's branches in the foreground of the 83 picture show some faint, blurred blocking, as well as in the bushes by the stairs in the 13 picture.

Your camera's image quality is horrible, though. It's blurred to hell. This is especially notable on the branches of the tree in the 83 picture. It's probably making good (possibly excessive) use of the smoothing parameter of JPEG, which is something that many compressors fail to do, and isn't particularly noticable because the image quality is bad to begin with. When you begin with a high-quality lossless source, blocking (or smoothing, there's a tradeoff) becomes more noticable.

Your camera seems to do well with gradients. Try taking some pictures of high-noise scenes, especially patterned high-noise, like a woven blanket or a really branchy tree or something. Blocks may be more noticable there.

What JPEG encoder does xnview use?