On Monday, October 21, 2013 4:05:36 PM UTC+1, tric...@accusoft.com wrote:
> There is probably a good study by the EPFL from, IIRC, 2011, published at the
> SPIE, Applications of Digital Image Processing, and many many others.
>
> Outcome is more or less that JPEG 2000 and JPEG XR are on par for a
On Saturday, October 19, 2013 12:30:15 PM UTC+1, Jeff Muizelaar wrote:
> - Original Message -
>
> > On Saturday, October 19, 2013 12:12:14 AM UTC+1, Ralph Giles wrote:
>
> > > On 2013-10-18 1:57 AM, Yoav Weiss wrote:
>
> > > Do you have such a sample?
>
> >
>
> > For what it's worth h
On Saturday, October 19, 2013 12:12:14 AM UTC+1, Ralph Giles wrote:
> On 2013-10-18 1:57 AM, Yoav Weiss wrote:
> Do you have such a sample?
For what it's worth here's an image I made quite awhile ago showing the results
of my own blind subjective comparison between codecs:
http://www.filedropper
Very interesting study. I’m shocked to see WebP and JPEG-XR perform so poorly
on so many of the tests. Do they really perform *that* much *worse* than JPEG?
It seems hard to imagine. I've done my own tests on jpeg, web-p and jpeg-xr by
blindly comparing files of the same size and deciding subjec
4 matches
Mail list logo
