Explain why we need images over 40kb.
>>54862630
Damn Pepe, HRT looking good.
Because shading.
>>54862630
I want to fertilize her eggs.
>>54862630
Wallpapers
optimize this to 40kb
>>54862781
>implying
>>54863467
>>54863508
retard
>>54863508
Magnifico.
muh pornwebms.
>>54863517
Alright you got me, here ya go
>>54862630
>>54863592
blyat
because the average US based internet connection can fetch large images with no trouble, and only retards cater to the smallest common denominator.
Because 4chin never adopted WebP
At 40kb you would have a pretty decent looking 720p image.
>>54863614
With WebP this image would be close to 5kB with the same visual quality.
>>54863680
>>54863706
webp shills >>>/out/
because the first world doesnt have datacaps
we don't *need* them.
Just want.
>>54863719
It's a free format you nigger.
>>54863508
>>54863779
>>54864485
I'd like one of her around my neck too, if you get what I'm drifting
>Australians
>>54863646
that really isn't a good enough reason that justifies having leaky pipes because we can just keep pumping more water. same thing with balooning sizes of OSs when we are not using flash memory and paying for having ignored the storage size needed for some OSs.
>>54866374
Give it a rest, lte can easily give you at least 0.5MB/s in most places. SSD and microsd storage is at an all time low and will keep getting cheaper.
>>54864270
holy shit
>>54866445
thats the same kind of attitude that gave us shitty javascript webpages that take megabytes to load one page and are slow to load.
>>54866528
>>>54866445
> slow to load.
For you.
>>54866588
Thats true. They're slow to load for me and others with similarly slow or shitty hardware. However, my computer has no issues playing some games that are way more resource intensive than a webpage, do you think it is reasonable that a webpage take longer to load and be slower to load than more resource intensive vidya?
Pepe got fine.
>>54866628
>Thats true. They're slow to load for me and others with similarly slow or shitty hardware.
This is only gonna get worse. Wirths's law is a bitch.
>>54864270
>222 Bytes
>Size on disk 4Kb
>>54862630
because not everything is a 640x640 cartoon image with four colors
>>54866628
I do think it is reasonable. You could probably afford a better computer if you spent your time working instead of playing games on your computer like it is some kind of toy
>>54863614
>>54866766
>>54863467
Who is this semen demon?
>>54863467
https://webencoder.libbpg.org/display/56ad1d8b-af19-4f5b-af77-06b2ad08ea68/e49d7d62-67f8-4d4e-aa86-64dc389659ad
>>54867017
how much CPU does that take? I can't get a good read on my laptop.
Explain why we need operating systems over 64 KiB
>>54863779
sauce please
>>54867630
It was on QVC when they were selling those seat cushions. She was stroking it saying how soft it was.
>>54867518
explain why we need more than 640K of ram
>>54864242
didn't come out smaller, but fuck it, I like the result.
Lol I remember when a certain long-dead forum had, "56K Warning," at the top of so many threads...
>>54862630
because some pics have more than 5 colors
>>54867973
in some strange bout of witchcraft, I think that is prettier than the original
>>54867100
It's based on HEVC
http://bellard.org/bpg/
>>54868009
Is it by any chance due to the scenery looking better?
>>54868176
I think you're on to something. Everything is pseudo sharper
Low color and dither is pretty. You can do a lot more when you are restricted.
This is 32 color.
>>54863467
This picture is great by 90's standards btw.
>>54866680
magic
>>54869092
impressive
>>54862630
Because sometimes we need to post pictures of your mom.
>>54867693
We don't but we code such shit we need 6.4GB to just run it
>>54869123
>90s porn quality
im ok with this
>>54863467
HEVC
https://0x0.st/bFv.h265
>>54863614
>>54863467
Wew, this compression app a shit
>>54862630
To drive the economy
>>54869191
What program do you use to view it with?
>>54869227
even with all those pixels, I know I still would.
>>54869256
mvi
>>54863467
>>54869339
for a 40kb future?
>>54869123
This actually qualifies as a picture and not modern art. Impressive
For 4k wallpapers
>>54869405
fuck, that almost crashed my tab.
>>54869434
>implying hentai titties wallpaper
>>54869406
>that
>a picture
all I see are blocks
>>54869461
At least it's the least amount of block for 40k picture so far
>>54869454
works perfectly fine here in firefox
I can pan smoothly, zoom in or out instantly, switch tabs instantly, and I didn't notice anything even remotely resembling a stutter when I opened it
>using the botnet browser
>>54869467
>not this shit again
This shit is the reason Firefox is looked down on
>>54869464
>At least it's the least amount of block for 40k picture so far
See >>54869191
>>54869467
Works fine for me in Chrome Canary famalam
>>54869472
not gonna get a program for this shit
>>54866588
YOU'RE A BIG GUY.
>>54869508
>his image viewer doesn't handle HEVC
it's shit
>>54863467
>>54866651
>>54866680
I'm not sure which of you is retarded
>>54862771
>her
>>54869546
That's not compression, that's just hotlinking from an external source.
It puts just as much load on the network as it would ordinarily, plus the load of downloading that image.
A real ``compression", that's similar in concept to what you are doing (but correct), would be to find the starting and ending index in Pi (or other irrational number) which contains the bit-string represented by the image.
>>54869598
the index would be larger than the file
>this thread
>>54867017
Can browser decode this? Any browser? Is it guaranteed to work for public use?
>>54869611
tell me we need images over 1kb when sub1kb is perfectly usable
>>54869210
slight improvement
>>54869598
chance of finding 1 bit in the 1st bit of pi - 1/2
1 bit in the 2nd bit - 1/2
etc..
chance of finding 1 bit at a given index - 1/2
expectation: 2 index long search
implication: ~1 bit index for 1 bit
chance of finding 2 bits in the 2 1st bits of pi - 1/4
chance of finding 2 bits in any given index... - 1/4
expectation: 4 index long search
implication: ~2 bit index for 2 bit
3 bits: 1/8
expectation: 8 tries
3 bit index.
it would seem that the expectation of index length is the same as the size of the data.
isn't that curious?
I suppose yes- it could be shorter. But 1/2 a chance of being shorter 1 bit, 1/4 by 2 bits, 1/8 by 3 bits etc...
The probability of making it any reasonable amount shorter is the same. The chance of making it longer is just as likely.
Someone has probably already solved this.
Googles new image format.
It isnt supported by 4chan, so i've zoomed to fullsize and screenshotted it.
Output size 40346bytes
>>54867973
Just like my animay vns
>>54869788
>>54869598
https://github.com/philipl/pifs
since pi is not a perfect enumeration (it contains repeating bits), your index/offset will be, on average, longer than the data itself. In practice, quite significantly so, making this utterly, ludicrously impractical for any real world purposes
>>54869614
Not without a js decoder.
https://github.com/mirrorer/libbpg
>>54869902
HEVC (libx265) for comparison
the crop was 1332x946+42+437 for reference
>>54869987
That is significantly better
>>54863467
I tried.
I fucking love this thread. Wish I was on a desktop computer to join in.
>>54869987
VP9 (libvpx-vp9) for comparison. Found a better crop too, 1332x946+42+439. File size was 40272
(File size on the HEVC sample was 40903)
>>54869987
>>54870056
>>54869902
You don't need to do this unless you just want to use that picture.
http://xooyoozoo.github.io/yolo-octo-bugfixes/
Pretty easy with photoshop
>>54870094
Looks like shit, anon
>>54870081
I just want to have fun
>>54870056
Daala. 41173 bytes (I couldn't get a closer match)
>>54869987
HEVC is easily the best as obviously expected
>>54870094
It's pretty easy with gimp too when you scale the image down from the original 2000x3000
>>54863467
God damn it. Even using DCNN and taking my time with the color grading I could still only get the picture down to 47kb while retaining the size.
I have failed my ancestors.
>>54870211
annnnnd best attempt in the thread yet. Wow.
>>54863467
/thread
OP is a complete fucking retard.
>>54870094
>>54870171
here's my try senpaitachi
>>54870261
does this help?
>>54870445
what about this?
>>54866665
you could write this image down by hand to a sticky note (little yellow piece of paper with sticky backside) and send it to someone!
>>54862630
From a person who is /gd/ but also /g/, that's fucking retarded.
>>54862630
>>54863467
Explain why bpg didn't take off and I will
http://bellard.org/bpg/
>>54870640
the last I can tickle out of it
>>54870731
full size version with the same settings for what it's worth
>>54870749
FWIW I think this one beats >>54870211 despite being smaller
>>54863467
Here yo go, buddy!
>>54870773
top kek
>>54863467
I had to make mine smaller as well. However, I think this makes the newest high score for the image 920x1380. Still, this is a pretty nasty task.
>>54862630
Some of us like quality.
>>54866680
Why is this a thing?
I had to check for myself and this is genuinely what it says.
>>54870945
>new high score
>>54869227
SNES version
>>54869460
28000 bytes for a (seemingly) black image?
WHAT?
>>54870211
Did you really do it with a neural network?
>>54869092
I really like this. Instead of looking like pixelated shit it uses dithering. Still far from 40KB but a great attempt and looks great.
>>54869092
>>54872002
Indeed. What steps in Photoshop would reproduce this?
>>54869460
>>54871072
Compressed.
>>54862630
because of hyperspectral spatial raster analysis
>>54872859
I'm not the guy who made that post. But thats def either gif or png8
>>54869508
it's hevc just use your media player, it works with mpc
>>54869657
we need a low res board
>>54862630
bump
>>54863467
No. 1:
--------
Process: Photoshop > MozJPEG
Size: 110KB
>>54863467
>>54863467
No. 2:
--------
Process: Photoshop > MozJPEG > Kraken.io
Size: 44KB
Both are still JPG and both are still 2000x3000px
>>54863467
>>54863467
No. 2:
--------
Process: Photoshop > Kraken.io
Size: 38KB
Here is another one that's below the 40kb mark
>>54874770
*No. 3
This is the best i can do.
>>54869092
2000x3000 pixels, 8 bits/pixel, 16 colors in palette
Reducing image to 4 bits/pixel, 16 colors in palette
Input IDAT size = 646139 bytes
Input file size = 646293 bytes
Trying:
zc = 9 zm = 9 zs = 0 f = 0 IDAT size = 610711
zc = 9 zm = 8 zs = 0 f = 0 IDAT size = 610495
Selecting parameters:
zc = 9 zm = 8 zs = 0 f = 0 IDAT size = 610495
Output IDAT size = 610495 bytes (35644 bytes decrease)
Output file size = 610649 bytes (35644 bytes = 5.52% decrease)
So your mother's pussy is more detailed for the viewing pleasure of the Internet.
>>54874854
jpegoptim-1.4.4-BETA-Win64.zip
f -s -m20
>>54874871
What about -o7 -zm1-9 ?
>>54875083
>-o7 -zm1-9
Processing...
>>54875102
1080 trials. In comparison -o7 is only 240 I think.
>a picture is worth a thousand words
>average word is ~5 letters
>1 byte per letter
>~6 bytes per word, plus spacing
>~6000 bytes per thousand words + spacing
Explain why we need images over 6kb.
>>54870710
Patents
out of my way faggots, webp master race coming through.
>>54870710
because H.265/HEVC is already dead.
>>54875390
It's not and it's amazing in terms of compression efficiency. Too bad about the stupid royalties and licensing.
>>54875438
its 16 times more expensive than H.264, has no upper limit on licensing costs and its lost the TV over IP war to VP9. 5 years from now noone will even remember it.
>>54864270
Ken this made clover crash
>>54875505
>5 years from now noone will even remember it.
Movie industry is not giving up on it and it's getting more and more support on hardware encoding and decoding every year. It's not going anywhere yet but HEVC content distributed over internet is likely going to be much smaller than competitive open and royalty free codecs like VP9 and upcoming VP10. I'm guessing we'll be seeing HEVC being the standard codec for recording videos in cameras too but that'll left to be seen. It could also potentially be used widely for various kind of movie/anime encoding scenes.
>>54862630
Because pic related
>>54863467
https://my.mixtape.moe/mnmegj.webm
done, where's my cookie?
>>54875716
>moe
eat shit abd die
>>54875754
say no moe
>>54875754
What does moe even mean
>>54870710
>Explain why bpg didn't take off and I will
You have to have a finished product to take off.
You can't get bpg through DNF or APT
You have the choice of compiling it yourself or going through some God awful web interface
But there's hope! Since all it needs is a little Javascript to display images and works in just about everything it's a perfect alternative to webp.
So in short, when Hiro tags a little extra JS to the site & lets us use BPG AND I don't have to compile anything I'll convert every fucking image I have. Until then keep pushing.
>>54864270
Can you optimize this one too please
>>54864270
>>54876242
>
>>54875688
Crashes my browser, you win.
>>54875983
wrong girl
>>54876474
>*Crashes my browser with no survivors.
C'mon man, how could you miss that?
>>54876548
>10000x10000
and i mean, i knew it was unlikely, but I like to try. <3
>>54875656
No camera manufacturer will pay for hevc when they can just stick a bigger sd card in their cameras. Movie industry maybe. The only people that are benefitting from HEVC currently are pirates.
Besides HEVC is going to get BTFOed march next near when the alliance for open media (Google, Mozilla Cisco, Intel, AMD, ARM, Nvidia, Microsoft, Netflix, Amazon) release their codec based on VP9, Dalaa and Thor..
>>54876803
>Besides HEVC is going to get BTFOed march next near when the alliance for open media (Google, Mozilla Cisco, Intel, AMD, ARM, Nvidia, Microsoft, Netflix, Amazon) release their codec based on VP9, Dalaa and Thor..
AV1 or whatever the fuck it's called is DOA. It will have no HW decoding support or even SW support for a few years.
>>54876872
Yes, the codec designed by intel, arm, nvidia and AMD will definitely not get HW support the first year its out.
>>54863646
This philosophy is the recipe for bloat.
>>54876872
>or even SW support
Google, Mozilla and Microsoft are in on this. They will most likely add support for it very quickly to their browsers and services.
Hardware support might be lacking, that is true.
>>54863680
>>54863706
>>54863799
>>54875340
WebP is not superior to JPEG.
https://blog.mozilla.org/research/2013/10/17/studying-lossy-image-compression-efficiency/
>>54877204
It is, see >>54874994 and >>54874887
>>54877204
dumb fuck cuckzilla shill detected.
>>54877255
>anecdotal evidence
>not using the latest mozjpeg2 library
>doesn't even notice the massive blurring in his images as a result of amateur math on WebP
Okay, kid.
>>54877326
Whatever you say, Jewgle rep.
>>54877471
>mozjpeg2
Fuck off you cuckzilla shill
>>54876474
what kind of shit browser do you use
>>54862630
>Explain why we need images over 40kb
>Posts an image that's 168kb
>>54877554
Enjoy your blurry photos from the Google office, Rajesh.
>>54867973
>what are you running from?
>>54863467
This is 40.1 kb when converted into .bpg -format. I losslessly converted it back to .png to upload it here for comparison purposes. Original is in the link below for anyone interested.
https://a.uguu.se/L20foS6ix4Ly.bpg
Who can make my waifu wall smaller?
>>54878184
Lossless
>>54868000
SA?
>>54878204
Thanks. I already used./pngcrush --rem-allb --reduce --brute in.png out.png
but that is significantly smaller. What program did you use?
>>54866588
They're slow because we have connections thousands of times faster and fucking websites still take the same time to load than 15 years ago. We have this wasteful attitude when making everything and it's going to destroy us.
>>54878174
can you do a psnr or ssim comaprison wtih a 40kb webp?
>>54878270
optipngoptipng -o 6 waifuwall.png
** Processing: waifuwall.png
1920x1200 pixels, 3x8 bits/pixel, RGB
Reducing image to 1 bit/pixel, 2 colors in palette
Input IDAT size = 147807 bytes
Input file size = 147864 bytes
Trying:
zc = 9 zm = 8 zs = 0 f = 0 IDAT size = 104608
zc = 9 zm = 8 zs = 1 f = 0 IDAT size = 103017
zc = 9 zm = 8 zs = 0 f = 2 IDAT size = 100793
zc = 9 zm = 8 zs = 1 f = 2 IDAT size = 97217
zc = 9 zm = 8 zs = 3 f = 2 IDAT size = 95621
Selecting parameters:
zc = 9 zm = 8 zs = 3 f = 2 IDAT size = 95621
Output IDAT size = 95621 bytes (52186 bytes decrease)
Output file size = 95696 bytes (52168 bytes = 35.28% decrease)
>>54864242
>>54866766
>>54867973
>>54869092
>>54869123
>>54878204
How are you guys making these?
Could someone give me a brief overview of how I'd go about coverting a picture to be like >>54867973
(I only need some basic explanation of terms to Google, not an in-depth tutorial or anything).
>>54878270
Here is another even better lossless one. I used the best, Google's zopflipng.
>>54878313
>>54878444
Thanks, I'll try playing with those programs.
>>54878491
No problem, also try pngout. It's the standard for lossless png compression and only gets beaten by zopfli.
>>54869191
goddamn
>>54874732
I don't know how you managed to fuck this up so badly compared to >>54870749
>>54878444
>>54878444
>Google's zopflipng.
well, nice botnet injection in the png now
>>54874854
my attempt at the same filesize
>>54862630
Your image is 1600kb in memory, faggot.
>>54869092
>>54874871
At those high file sizes you can do much better
>>54876872
>It will have no HW decoding support
Intel, AMD and Nvidia are part of the alliance you idiot
>>54863467
>>54879339
that's nowhere close to 40kb
>>54879473
?
>>54870773
Thanks doc
>>54879819
Now it's significantly worse than >>54870749
>>54863467
obviously you need to reduce file size for your request
>>54863467
my carat nose, there :^)
>>54880102
>40kb
>>54862630
Because not all pictures come in 5 colors
And because some pictures require a high level of detail
>>54863467
How about this?
>>54880471
Why is she mutating?
>>54869256
literally any media player..
>>54880496
lossy png
>>54863467
>>54863508
>>54863592
>>54869092
>>54869123
>>54869227
>>54869297
>>54870015
>>54870094
>>54870171
>>54870211
>>54870261
>>54870445
>>54870640
>>54870731
>>54870749
>>54870773
>>54870945
>>54871058
>>54874682
>>54874693
>>54874732
>>54874770
>>54874854
>>54874871
>>54875340
>>54878174
>>54879170
>>54879232
>>54879339
>>54879471
>>54879819
>>54879982
>>54880004
>>54880102
>>54880356
>>54880471
Stop posting this image.
>>54880681
what, not enjoying the show?
i find it very ... compressing
blurs the lines of art and CS
takes a good block of time to watch over too
you guys designing a logo in here?
>>54863467
This triggers muscled bald men.
>>54878344
The first one >>54864242 looks like a simple threshold filter. >>54867973 I did with an online Atkinson dithering filter.
http://gazs.github.io/canvas-atkinson-dither/
>>54863467
That was easy.
https://youtu.be/QEzhxP-pdos
>>54880765
ugly chink whore
>>54880776
>https://youtu.be/QEzhxP-pdos
What's that cartoon called?
>>54880837
nvm, found ^^
King of the Hill
how low can you go on this file size?
this any good? :^)
>>54880681
no
>>54881205
what operation did you do there?
Because how else would we post high quality memes?
DO I LOOK LIKE I KNOW WHAT A JPEG IS?
>>54876284
I actually didn't know about this, amazing
>>54881318
channel swap, negative, combine max, balance saturation
>>54878174
Rather impressive.
>>54881434
will have to try it
here is RGB to CMY conversion
>>54862630
Because not every image is a 640x480 clip art.
>>54875534
Not on my phone
>>54881572
>683 KB
are you even trying?
>>54881572
I cant figure out what you did
>>54881880void convertRGBToCMY(Image& image){
printf("\nCMY Color Space Conversion\n");
double scale = pow(2,image.getBitDepth())-1;
for(unsigned int line=0; line<image.height(); line++){
for(unsigned int pixel=0; pixel<image.width(); pixel++){
double r,g,b;
r=image[line][pixel].R / scale;
g=image[line][pixel].G / scale;
b=image[line][pixel].B / scale;
double c,m,y,k;
k = 1 - max(r,max(g,b));
c = (1-r-k) / (1-k);
m = (1-g-k) / (1-k);
y = (1-b-k) / (1-k);
image[line][pixel].R = c * scale;
image[line][pixel].G = m * scale;
image[line][pixel].B = y * scale;
}
}
}
