Re: JPEG-XL as Content-Encoding?

Am 21.08.2020 um 14:00 schrieb Alex Deymo:
> Hi,
> I'm Alex and I'm working in the JPEG XL project. The transcoding being
> discussed for this is indeed the lossless recompression of JPEG files
> feature in JXL.
>
> JXL has many more features as a codec than what the lossless JPEG
> recompression can offer, you would get a lot better compression density
> for similar visual quality if you don't need to be able to reconstruct
> the exact same original JPEG file (or if your original was not a JPEG to
> start with but RAW data from a camera), so it makes a lot of sense to
> add jxl as an image codec on its own.
>
> However, on top of that, the lossless recompression of JPEG files allows
> you to get this ~20% gain for existing files. When you deploy a new
> lossy codec there is the question of what to do with the existing
> images. If you have a website with photos and want to convert your
> already lossy JPEG files to a new codec to save storage and bandwidth
> and you decide to decode them to pixels and encode them back to the new
> format you will end up with more artifacts or worse compression density
> trying to accurately represent the JPEG artifacts in the new codec,
> whatever the codec is. It's impractical to do this lossy transcoding to
> a new codec at large scale on existing images, each application would
> need to evaluate whether they want to do this for existing images. This
> story is different if you start with a large and high quality image
> (like a JPEG from a camera) and want to encode in a smaller form for the
> web, since there you already have a high quality file.

That makes it sound a bit as if a losslessly-re-encoded JPG file is not
a valid JXL file. Is that the case?

> ...
> I think the only shocking thing about a content-encoding for JPEGs is
> that it can't encode any arbitrary file only JPEGs, but if you look at
> "general purpose" compressors like Brotli they still can't compress to a
> smaller file every file; many binary files that are already compressed
> like .zip or even a JPEG files (unless they have a large ICC) won't
> compress to a smaller file so you just don't do it even if Brotli is
> able to compress them to a ~similar size file.
> ...

That's indeed a concern. For the other currently registered encodings,
you *can* apply them, but they do not necessarily help.

This one can't be applied to any file type. One way to address this
would be to tune the format that it *can* handle any file type (by just
adding a tiny wrapper around it and preserving the actual octet stream
within).

> ...

Best regards, Julian

Received on Friday, 21 August 2020 12:23:36 UTC