BPG format
Images are sometimes not shown due to bandwidth/network limitations. Refreshing the page usually helps.
You are currently reading a thread in /g/ - Technology
You are currently reading a thread in /g/ - Technology
Why hasn't the BPG image format been more widely adopted yet?
http://bellard.org/bpg/
impressive comparisons:
https://xooyoozoo.github.io/yolo-octo-bugfixes/#mascot&jpg=s&bpg=s
>>51610031
You can begin the revolution by utilising it on your webserver
>>51610031
I never even hear of it. Maybe it's too new. Is there software to use without needing to go full command line retard? If there isn't that's probably one reason.
it needs to be widely supported.
Also few people care about saving some kilobytes.
The end user doesn't care about saving 20,50,100kilobytes, they just want images to load on their PC/phone and thats it.
>>51610099
You could try the online encoder for testing purposes.
http://webencoder.libbpg.org/
>>51610104
yeah, guess you're right.
although it would be cool if sites likes 4chan would adopt it and offer it optionally.
>>51610099
And there's this tool:
http://www.romeolight.com/products/bpgconv/
>>51610109
>BPG Web Encoder provides online transcoding of tradional jpg/png image to superior bpg files. The original libbpg encoder version is used to transcode the images with the default encoder options.
Looks useless from here, probably will test anyways whem I get bore tho
>>51610165
>probably will test anyways
you definitely should. Plus you can change the encoder options to your liking.
>>51610122
seems dumb, then you have all this ovehead of converting images for a very small minority of people.
This is almost as stupid as the morons that suggested using webm for still images.
The tennis example I say is an outlier, in the other example images the differences between JPEG and BPG is much smaller.
>>51610200
Just tried it. Converted a 4 mb picture to a 533 kb bpg. Tried to ooen t with quickpic and it says load failed. Might have to try it on pc. Hooe Irfanview supports it.
>>51610104
Well, if it is a dramatic difference in file size it can allow server to host higher quality content a same file sizes and transferring files between people on limited data plans would be interested.
>>51610248
I think the difference is very obvious if you compare at similar file sizes.
>>51610272
chicken and egg problem is what stops most of these new formats from going anywhere.
>>51610346
that's great news, but few people are that desperate for space these days.
internet traffic is cheap as fuck too.
I'm sure maybe you can convince some manga group to start releasing everything in BPG format
>>51610379
You make a good argument in regards to space. Bandwidth, however, isn' t always that cheap, is it?
>>51610031
So basically it converts png/jpg images into its own format that is based on a subset of H265 and then when it has to display the images, it converts them back to png/jpg in runtime.
Wouldn't it make browsing on older devices a pain? Today's websites are already infested with poorly written JavaScript that makes browsing on anything but one of the newer machine impossible. Add the load of decoding images from image data and that too using a JavaScript decoder, we just might have the recipe for disaster
>>51610540
b-but muh bandwidth and marginally better quality!
>>51610540
The tiny javascript decoder written by Bellard is anything but poor, though.
>>51610622
Well yeah I guess you're right, I mean the guy wrote tcc and loads of important stuff, but I still can't shrug off the feeling that we shouldn't put any more load on the client side, it already takes like 3-4 seconds to load the page
>>51610561
>marginally better quality
Have you seen those comparisons?
>>51610693
>we shouldn't put any more load on the client side
Yeah, that's probably why bpg hasn't really caught on. Real shame, though.
>>51610712
haha, I was wondering the same. The difference is staggering imho, plus this is an anime image board!!
The difference between JPG and BPG at higher quality is minimal. There's very little need to use very high compression on images nowadays, so JPG is considered good enough, and that's the way it'll stay for a long time, because there's little incentive to update everything to support a slightly better file format.
Same reason everyone still uses MP3: higher bitrates are good enough for most people.
>>51610946
At small and tiny file sizes bpg destroys jpg, though.
But I see where you're coming from.
>higher bitrates are good enough for most people
true
>>51610946
>The difference between JPG and BPG at higher quality is minimal
The difference in filesize with same quality is huge, at higher quality too.
Because patents, licensing fees & royalties
You morons always don't mention that it's non free patented HEVC compression format
>>51611189
welp
And I was almost ready to believe were finally about to be allowed to have good things for a change.
>>51610540
>JavaScript decoder
In the trash it goes.
>>51611189
This. BPG is cute, but is not happening natively in any browsers and is a massive patent violation anywhere that has software patents. Even HEVC itself is not happening because there are actually two competing patent pools, not one, and HEVC Advance wants per-everything royalties. Patents fuck everything up.
It may be that NetVC's i-frame encoding creates a good image format - lapped transforms are even more based than Hadamard, and it will be royalty-free, like Opus - but that will be a few years until it's good (it's a codec generation after HEVC, after all, and we have to rethink several processes).
WebP works but it's a bit blurry and support is spotty. It is at least not a lawsuit risk if rolled out.
>>51610031
> filename.jpg
>>51611644
/b/ is right around the corner, you know.
