Results 1 to 10 of 10

Thread: News - Mozilla's advanced JPG encoder cuts file sizes by five per cent

  1. #1
    HEXUS.admin
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    28,570
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked
    1,858 times in 634 posts

    News - Mozilla's advanced JPG encoder cuts file sizes by five per cent

    mozjpeg 2.0 is being tested by Facebook to save server burden, help user pages load faster.
    Read more.

  2. #2
    Anthropomorphic Personification shaithis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    The Last Aerie
    Posts
    10,830
    Thanks
    645
    Thanked
    870 times in 734 posts
    • shaithis's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Asus P8Z77 WS
      • CPU:
      • i7 3770k @ 4.5GHz
      • Memory:
      • 32GB HyperX 1866
      • Storage:
      • Lots!
      • Graphics card(s):
      • Sapphire Fury X
      • PSU:
      • Corsair HX850
      • Case:
      • Corsair 600T (White)
      • Operating System:
      • Windows 10 x64
      • Monitor(s):
      • 2 x Dell 3007
      • Internet:
      • Zen 80Mb Fibre

    Re: News - Mozilla's advanced JPG encoder cuts file sizes by five per cent

    A whole 5% off of a small lossy file? and they aren't compatible with some decoders?

    Hmmm, no wonder Firefox has hit rock bottom, they obviously don't know where to allot dev time!
    Main PC: Asus Rampage IV Extreme / 3960X@4.5GHz / Antec H1200 Pro / 32GB DDR3-1866 Quad Channel / Sapphire Fury X / Areca 1680 / 850W EVGA SuperNOVA Gold 2 / Corsair 600T / 2x Dell 3007 / 4 x 250GB SSD + 2 x 80GB SSD / 4 x 1TB HDD (RAID 10) / Windows 10 Pro, Yosemite & Ubuntu
    HTPC: AsRock Z77 Pro 4 / 3770K@4.2GHz / 24GB / GTX 1080 / SST-LC20 / Antec TP-550 / Hisense 65k5510 4K TV / HTC Vive / 2 x 240GB SSD + 12TB HDD Space / Race Seat / Logitech G29 / Win 10 Pro
    HTPC2: Asus AM1I-A / 5150 / 4GB / Corsair Force 3 240GB / Silverstone SST-ML05B + ST30SF / Samsung UE60H6200 TV / Windows 10 Pro
    Spare/Loaner: Gigabyte EX58-UD5 / i950 / 12GB / HD7870 / Corsair 300R / Silverpower 700W modular
    NAS 1: HP N40L / 12GB ECC RAM / 2 x 3TB Arrays || NAS 2: Dell PowerEdge T110 II / 24GB ECC RAM / 2 x 3TB Hybrid arrays || Network:Buffalo WZR-1166DHP w/DD-WRT + HP ProCurve 1800-24G
    Laptop: Lenovo Flex 2 / 12GB RAM / 240GB Corsair Force 3 Printer: HP CP1515n || Phone: HTC One U11 || Other: Samsung Galaxy Tab 4 Pro 10.1 CM12.1 / Playstation 4 + G29 + 2TB Hybrid drive

  3. #3
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    231
    Thanks
    7
    Thanked
    10 times in 9 posts
    • d032sh's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Asus P5b-e
      • CPU:
      • E4300 @ 3GHz
      • Memory:
      • 4GB OCZ Platinum
      • Storage:
      • ~4TB
      • Graphics card(s):
      • 8800GTS 640MB
      • PSU:
      • Corsair HX620
      • Case:
      • Akasa Eclipse 62
      • Operating System:
      • Win 7

    Re: News - Mozilla's advanced JPG encoder cuts file sizes by five per cent

    Quote Originally Posted by shaithis View Post
    A whole 5% off of a small lossy file? and they aren't compatible with some decoders?

    Hmmm, no wonder Firefox has hit rock bottom, they obviously don't know where to allot dev time!
    The potential savings in image bandwidth make this a very worthwhile pursuit.

  4. #4
    Previously known as Wozza365
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    418
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked
    17 times in 16 posts
    • Wozza63's system
      • Motherboard:
      • ASUS M5A99X EVO
      • CPU:
      • FX 8150 @4.2GHz
      • Memory:
      • 8GB Kingston HyperX 1600MHz
      • Storage:
      • Intel 120GB SSD, 4TB Seagate
      • Graphics card(s):
      • XFX R9 390
      • PSU:
      • Corsair TX850
      • Case:
      • Akasa Venom Toxic
      • Operating System:
      • Windows 7
      • Monitor(s):
      • Acer XG270HU + Iiyama E2473HDS x2

    Re: News - Mozilla's advanced JPG encoder cuts file sizes by five per cent

    Quote Originally Posted by shaithis View Post
    A whole 5% off of a small lossy file? and they aren't compatible with some decoders?

    Hmmm, no wonder Firefox has hit rock bottom, they obviously don't know where to allot dev time!
    Facebook transfers 100s of terabytes of data per day, and most of that is images! 5% of just 100TB is 5TB, more than you probably have in your whole system. It's a lot of savings for big companies, imagine how much money Google could save by applying this to Google image search! So much saving that will indirectly benefit the users in the long run

  5. #5
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    Newcastle Upon Tyne
    Posts
    926
    Thanks
    54
    Thanked
    105 times in 72 posts
    • Jowsey's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Asrock H81M-ITX
      • CPU:
      • Intel Xeon E3-1230V3
      • Memory:
      • 8GB Corsair XMS3
      • Storage:
      • 256GB Crucial MX100 & 2TB Seagate Barracuda
      • Graphics card(s):
      • Asus GTX 770 DCUII 2GB
      • PSU:
      • EVGA SuperNova GS 550 watt
      • Case:
      • Phanteks Evolv ITX
      • Operating System:
      • Windows 7 64 bit
      • Internet:
      • Virgin Media 100Mb

    Re: News - Mozilla's advanced JPG encoder cuts file sizes by five per cent

    Quote Originally Posted by Wozza365 View Post
    Facebook transfers 100s of terabytes of data per day, and most of that is images! 5% of just 100TB is 5TB, more than you probably have in your whole system. It's a lot of savings for big companies, imagine how much money Google could save by applying this to Google image search! So much saving that will indirectly benefit the users in the long run
    Valid point but I think it's the size of the gain that is underwhelming. Google trial runs a new codec , VP9, and introduces a large saving for high resolution video. (I think, I can't find a link)

  6. #6
    AlexKitch
    Guest

    Re: News - Mozilla's advanced JPG encoder cuts file sizes by five per cent

    To be fair, if Facebook wanted to reduce their image overhead by 5%, they'd proably just dial down the JPEG quality slightly. I doubt most users would actually even notice.

    Don't get me wrong, it's cool and all, but I'm not sure it's a problem that particularly needed to be solved - not least by an organisation that's struggling to stay relevant in the browser arena at the moment.

  7. #7
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Wonderful Warwick!
    Posts
    2,629
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked
    100 times in 83 posts

    Re: News - Mozilla's advanced JPG encoder cuts file sizes by five per cent

    Quote Originally Posted by AlexKitch View Post
    To be fair, if Facebook wanted to reduce their image overhead by 5%, they'd proably just dial down the JPEG quality slightly. I doubt most users would actually even notice.

    Don't get me wrong, it's cool and all, but I'm not sure it's a problem that particularly needed to be solved - not least by an organisation that's struggling to stay relevant in the browser arena at the moment.
    Which is possibly why they're branching out, so to speak...
    Old puter - still good enuff till I save some pennies!

  8. #8
    Registered+
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    18
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked
    1 time in 1 post

    Re: News - Mozilla's advanced JPG encoder cuts file sizes by five per cent

    Quote Originally Posted by Jowsey View Post
    Valid point but I think it's the size of the gain that is underwhelming. Google trial runs a new codec , VP9, and introduces a large saving for high resolution video. (I think, I can't find a link)
    A new codec/algorithm means you need to update all the software that consumes the content to support it.
    We have already been on this path: JPEG2000, JPEG XR, WebP. All of them offer great advantages over plain JPEG but none of them reached widespread support yet.

    The case for WebP which is the most modern format is that only Chrome and its derivatives support it natively, and only some software/websites allow you uploading WebP files that are ultimately converted into JPEG for public consumption (Facebook, Gmail, Drupal/Magento CMS).
    For a new image format to gain traction it needs to be supported by the 4 big browsers out there: IE, Firefox, Safari and Chrome.

    The thing with JPEG is that software to consume it is already out there, and with the advancements in mozjpeg 2.0 it's probably compatible with 95% of any software developed in the last 5 years, if not more. Try switching to WebP and even Android phones from the last 2 years will have trouble if they are stuck at Android 2.3 (Gingerbread).

  9. #9
    Token 'murican GuidoLS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    806
    Thanks
    54
    Thanked
    110 times in 78 posts
    • GuidoLS's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Asus P5Q Pro
      • CPU:
      • C2Q 9550 stock
      • Memory:
      • 8gb Corsair
      • Storage:
      • 2x1tb Hitachi 7200's, WD Velociraptor 320gb primary
      • Graphics card(s):
      • nVidia 9800GT
      • PSU:
      • Corsair 750w
      • Case:
      • Antec 900
      • Operating System:
      • Win10/Slackware Linux dual box
      • Monitor(s):
      • Viewsonic 24" 1920x1080
      • Internet:
      • AT&T U-Verse 12mb

    Re: News - Mozilla's advanced JPG encoder cuts file sizes by five per cent

    Quote Originally Posted by Wozza365 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by shaithis View Post
    A whole 5% off of a small lossy file? and they aren't compatible with some decoders?

    Hmmm, no wonder Firefox has hit rock bottom, they obviously don't know where to allot dev time!
    Facebook transfers 100s of terabytes of data per day, and most of that is images! 5% of just 100TB is 5TB, more than you probably have in your whole system. It's a lot of savings for big companies, imagine how much money Google could save by applying this to Google image search! So much saving that will indirectly benefit the users in the long run
    Not to be pedantic, but both Google and Facebook are, for the most part, free - the only cost involved is allowing ourselves to be data mined and ad-attacked. What possible savings could there be for the average consumer? We aren't talking bmp's here, or RAW, or anything remotely close. As has been stated already, Facebook (and Google) are both well capable of reducing quality by 5%, or 25%, or pick an arbitrary number. Most (as in, almost all of us) won't notice, for the most part.

    What Mozilla needs to do is get back to concentrating on its flagship product, removing the recently introduced bloat, actually following industry standards (HTML5 plz - Flash needs to go), and making a product that, at one point, actually was a fair replacement for IE.
    Esse Quam Videri
    Out on the road today I saw a Black Flag Sticker on a Cadillac...


  10. #10
    Does he need a reason? Funkstar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Aberdeen
    Posts
    19,874
    Thanks
    630
    Thanked
    965 times in 816 posts
    • Funkstar's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Gigabyte EG45M-DS2H
      • CPU:
      • Intel Core2Quad Q9550 (2.83GHz)
      • Memory:
      • 8GB OCZ PC2-6400C5 800MHz Quad Channel
      • Storage:
      • 650GB Western Digital Caviar Blue
      • Graphics card(s):
      • 512MB ATI Radeon HD4550
      • PSU:
      • Antec 350W 80+ Efficient PSU
      • Case:
      • Antec NSK1480 Slim Mini Desktop Case
      • Operating System:
      • Vista Ultimate 64bit
      • Monitor(s):
      • Dell 2407 + 2408 monitors
      • Internet:
      • Zen 8mb

    Re: News - Mozilla's advanced JPG encoder cuts file sizes by five per cent

    Quote Originally Posted by GuidoLS View Post
    Not to be pedantic, but both Google and Facebook are, for the most part, free - the only cost involved is allowing ourselves to be data mined and ad-attacked. What possible savings could there be for the average consumer?
    I think Wozza was meaning the saving to them, not to us. Someone has to pay for all the storage, server processing, internet traffic from their data centres etc. Reducing that by 5% which still maintaining the quality could be a massive boon for them. Granted reducing the quality by a few percent could have the same outcome without anyone noticing, however photo sharing a key part of their business models now, so compromising quality could result in adverse negative publicity. Facebook or Google announcing a tweak to their software to improve load times, reduce bandwidth yet maintaining quality is a win win for all.

    Also remember that an ever increasing proportion of traffic on social networks is through mobile devices that are often memory and processor constrained. Low data caps on mobile connection would also benefit from any reduction of image file sizes.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •