No discussion here about new image format

[Richard Lundberg]

Here http://bellard.org/bpg/ is a spec like outline of the BPG image format, Better Portable Graphics.
I haven't read any criticism of it yet, perhaps others in this forum can critique it. A popularization in brief is here http://www.gizmag.com/bpg-image-form...ms-jpeg/35232/ and here https://fstoppers.com/other/new-imag...lar-jpeg-49731

[James G]

Hi Richard,
This looks interesting, I think I can see me using it to present images on my cloud based storage where I am restricting the ability to download.

Not sure I would use it with friends and family yet if I'm expecting them to download images to their own systems, since mostly they are not IT savvy.

That said, it does not look too difficult to distribute the JavaScript decoder. I'll give it a try...

Thanks for the "heads up"
James

[davidedric]

Yes, thanks. Don't have the capability to critique it, but the visual comparisons are impressive.

Dave

[dje]

The interesting thing for me about this is that it's described as a sub-set of the new video standard h.265 which was developed jointly by the MPEG people and an ITU group. However the term BPG seems to be a name being put forward by an individual (who is involved in the FFmpeg team), at least according to the link you provided. In fact in that link, he is referring to his implementation code. I wonder where the term BPG stands with the standards organisations ? The other thing I wonder is whether a new codec with higher efficiency than jpeg will gain universal acceptance when JPEG2000 hasn't.

Dave

[Manfred M]

Ho hum. To me this is one of those "let the marketplace decide". If the quality (and associated overhead) are so much better, then there will be a push by the marketplace to adopt; the H.265 is a great example; fast and decent quality; it went from "new kid on the block" to being pretty well the defacto standard quite quickly (helped along by the big players pushing for it).

The term "better" is fraught with issues, as for web graphics things like loading speed are probably more important than image quality. Once wide gamut screens and wider colour spaces are the norm, give me a call. Right now 8-bit and sRGB are the base configuration, largely because of the majority of the display hardware that is out there can handle.

A new model developed by a single programer; I probably can't see it getting beyond a few enthusiasts. The big players and standards committees (that tend to move very slowly) are going to drive acceptance of any new format. I'm not holding my breath just yet...

[DanK]

Ho hum. To me this is one of those "let the marketplace decide". If the quality (and associated overhead) are so much better, then there will be a push by the marketplace to adopt...A new model developed by a single programer; I probably can't see it getting beyond a few enthusiasts.

I agree. I wouldn't want to fuss with a non-standard format.

[dje]

If the quality (and associated overhead) are so much better, then there will be a push by the marketplace to adopt; the H.265 is a great example; fast and decent quality; it went from "new kid on the block" to being pretty well the defacto standard quite quickly (helped along by the big players pushing for

Hi Manfred, I suspect you meant H.264 rather than H.265. H.265 is the relatively new one for 4K video but it has been adopted by the Bluray association so it is "on the way". I don't think we'll see it on television broadcasts for some time yet. It takes quite a while for mass consumer technology to change over to something like this.

Dave

[Manfred M]

Hi Manfred, I suspect you meant H.264 rather than H.265. H.265 is the relatively new one for 4K video but it has been adopted by the Bluray association so it is "on the way". I don't think we'll see it on television broadcasts for some time yet. It takes quite a while for mass consumer technology to change over to something like this.

Dave

Yes, Dave you're right, I was referring to H.264.

[Richard Lundberg]

Movies and television are way ahead of the web technically. The bit depths and resolution create large file sizes tat would benefit from the better compression of BPG. Monitors will have to catch up and Dell is already making fairly affordable high res. Wider gamuts than argb are coming using multiple LEDS. The next image format will have to be something like BPG only massaged by a standards organization like the MPEG.
There are other new formats such as Google's WebP, too. Speaking of Google, search this:
"QEMU, FFMPEG guru unleashes JPEG-slaying graphics compressor".
There is NO support for BPG yet, but the developer is releasing his C code free.

[xpatUSA]

. . .Wider gamuts than argb are coming using multiple LEDS. . . .

Richard, do you have a reference or a link for that, please?

[Richard Lundberg]

This iix a fairly good overview but does not cover the developments in six and nine color LED backlights which I have seen somewhere but haven't been able to find again yet.
https://pcmonitors.info/articles/the...ed-backlights/