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 12:12:14 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:
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 here's an image I
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
4 matches
Mail list logo
