WebP vs. JPEG XR?

Julian Walker

unread,

Sep 30, 2010, 9:11:21 PM9/30/10

to WebP Discussion

I'm curious how JPEG XR (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JPEG_XR) would
fair with the same 1,000,000 images from the web. I know it to provide
substantial compression savings over JPEG for typical photographs, but
am less familiar with its performance on typical web images. It has a
huge number of features over WebP, including already being an ISO
standard.

Mark Adams

unread,

Oct 1, 2010, 1:56:47 AM10/1/10

to WebP Discussion

My first thought as well. In addition JPEG XR can be lossless and has
low complexity which is crucial to not killing battery life on mobile
devices.

pJ

unread,

Oct 1, 2010, 2:59:09 AM10/1/10

to WebP Discussion

Oh, fu** ms-jpeg-xr!
Google, PLEASE use STANDARD good JPEG-2000 for blessing of all people!!

pJ

unread,

Oct 1, 2010, 3:19:13 AM10/1/10

to WebP Discussion

By the way, if to select between WebP/VP8 and JPEG-XR/JPEG-2000 -
JPEG2000/XR it is better because WebP/VP8 it is based on REALLY
ANCIENT technology JPEG/MP4, it actually a big step back in
technology!

Wavelets unambiguously it is better, is jpeg-2000 which more
powerfully and better than all of old jpeg-s; the format jpeg-2000 is
remarkable and is well designed and initially adapted for a network,
including for transmission losses, why not to use it?

In other words you try to select become outdated DCT + new post-
processing, instead of at once to take wavelets! In my opinion, it is
simply silly. When students are engaged in it, it is admissible. But
when the big corporation tries to impose such bad technology, it
causes perturbation!

pJ

unread,

Oct 1, 2010, 4:01:44 AM10/1/10

to WebP Discussion

Some more words. It is necessary to publish comparing (WebP-vs-
JPEG2000), instead of (WebP-vs-JPEG) (comparing with certainly old
technology!). Then we will see, is how much good or bad WebP actually.

Look at comparing (JPEG-XR-vs-JPEG-2000), please. Here you will see
that JPEG2000 is really very good:
http://www.compression.ru/video/codec_comparison/wmp_codecs_comparison.html

Ram Ramani

unread,

Oct 1, 2010, 4:14:12 AM10/1/10

to webp-d...@webmproject.org

On Fri, Oct 1, 2010 at 1:31 PM, pJ <pirojoke.ua@gmail.com> wrote:

Some more words. It is necessary to publish comparing (WebP-vs-
JPEG2000), instead of (WebP-vs-JPEG) (comparing with certainly old
technology!). Then we will see, is how much good or bad WebP actually.

It has been made available here - http://code.google.com/speed/webp/docs/c_study.html

Look at comparing (JPEG-XR-vs-JPEG-2000), please. Here you will see
that JPEG2000 is really very good:
http://www.compression.ru/video/codec_comparison/wmp_codecs_comparison.html

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "WebP Discussion" group.
To post to this group, send email to webp-d...@webmproject.org.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to webp-discuss...@webmproject.org.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/a/webmproject.org/group/webp-discuss/?hl=en.

pJ

unread,

Oct 1, 2010, 4:29:29 AM10/1/10

to WebP Discussion

"H.264 and VP8 for still image coding: WebP?"
http://x264dev.multimedia.cx/?p=541

pJ

unread,

Oct 1, 2010, 4:42:49 AM10/1/10

to WebP Discussion

I ask me to forgive, but charts seem me not similar to truth. They
contradict my experience with JPEG2000.

For example, whether OPTIMAL parameters were used at compression
JPEG2000? Here an example of the BAD testing of the codec:
http://forum.compression.ru/viewtopic.php? f=4&t=2241 (rus).

Mark Adams

unread,

Oct 1, 2010, 4:45:56 PM10/1/10

to WebP Discussion

JPEG2000 isn't happening because the computational complexity is
insane which would kill mobile device battery life. JPEG XR has lower
complexity than JPEG though.

Reply all

Reply to author

Forward