Why did wavelets die?
Why is JPEG 2000 still beating a dead horse? HEVC and H264 proved that nothing will replace good old blocks except larger blocks.
Just look at this shit, it's barely even better.
>>51287386
>>51287401
Noone cares, we've already moved to webm/p, grandpa.
>>51287386
>Why did wavelets die?
Never werked
>Why is JPEG 2000 still beating a dead horse? HEVC and H264 proved that nothing will replace good old blocks except larger blocks.
Muh industry standards
Literally the only reason JPEG2000 isn't completely abandoned it's that DCI uses it
>>51287386
I would like to see that comparison done using mozjpeg for encoding the JPEG
>>51287739
>webp
nice meme
>>51287739
vp8 is horrible
>>51288063
What about the bitrate?
>>51288905
http://www.streamingmedia.com/articles/editorial/featured-articles/first-look-h.264-and-vp8-compared-67266.aspx
Wavelets always suffered horribly from blur. I'm almost 100% positive Microsoft experimented with wavelets before mpeg4 really took off because their video always looked so terrible.
>>51288905
>>51288063
>>51289325
Does Youtube uses VP8 now? Because I've noticed that 480p videos look worse now, before I could read text on 480p now I have to up the video to 720p to make something out of it.
>>51288063
VP9 is pretty good though.
>>51289419
No, they're using VP9 for most stuff, nowadays it actually beats h264, unwieldly slow encoding though
>>51288063
>>51289325
libvpx has massively improved since then m8
>>51289419
Nah, they use VP9 if you use Chrome/ium. But they fall back to H264 if on Firefox (without the retarded hidden flag to enable VP9).
Even Google don't use VP8 anymore except for webp which was a failure.
>>51289439
>>51289443
Well, they changed something because now it's worse.
