• AbouBenAdhem@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 month ago

    Spectral JPEG XL utilizes a technique used with human-visible images, a math trick called a discrete cosine transform (DCT), to make these massive files smaller […] it then applies a weighting step, dividing higher-frequency spectral coefficients by the overall brightness (the DC component), allowing less important data to be compressed more aggressively.

    This all sounds like standard jpeg compression. Is it just jpeg with extra channels?

    • wischi@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      30 days ago

      It’s not just like jpeg with extra channels. It’s technically far superior, supports loss less compression, and the way the decompression works would make thumbnails obsolete. It can even recompress already existing JPEGs even smaller without additional generation loss. It’s hard to describe what a major step this format would be without getting very technical. A lot of operating systems and software already support it, but the Google chrome team is practically preventing widespread adoption because of company politics.

      https://issues.chromium.org/issues/40168998

      • uis@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        30 days ago

        Both og JPEG and JXL support lossless compression.

        • wischi@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          29 days ago

          JPEG does not support lossless compression. There was an extension to the standard in 1993 but most de/encoders don’t implement that and it never took off. With JPEG XL you get more bang for your buck and the same visual quality will get you a smaller file. There would be no more need for thumbnails because of improved progressive decoding.

          https://youtu.be/UphN1_7nP8U

    • Prok@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 month ago

      Yeah, it compresses better too though, and jpeg XL can be configured to compress lossless, which I imagine would also work here

  • zerofk@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 month ago

    “And while Spectral JPEG XL dramatically reduces file sizes, its lossy approach may pose drawbacks for some scientific applications.”

    This is the part that confuses me. First of all, many applications that need spectral data need it to be as accurate as possible. Lossy compression in that might not be acceptable.

    More interestingly (and I’ll read the actual paper for this): which data will be more compressed? Simply put, JPEG achieves its best compression by keeping the brightness but discarding colour. Which dimension in which spectral space do the researchers think can be more compressed than others? In this case there is no human visual system to base the decision on.