Supporting mozjpeg for saving JPEG files

Ideas for improvements and requests for new features in XnView Classic

Moderators: XnTriq, xnview

Post Reply
roytam1
Posts: 18
Joined: Sat Sep 23, 2006 2:24 am

Supporting mozjpeg for saving JPEG files

Post by roytam1 »

mozjpeg 3.0 shows a better quality on saving JPEG files, so please consider using it!
http://calendar.perfplanet.com/2014/mozjpeg-3-0/
MaxSt
Posts: 133
Joined: Fri Apr 10, 2009 9:55 pm

Re: Supporting mozjpeg for saving JPEG files

Post by MaxSt »

User avatar
o-l-a-v
Posts: 5
Joined: Thu May 01, 2014 1:50 pm

Re: Supporting mozjpeg for saving JPEG files

Post by o-l-a-v »

+1

I'd really love this too :)
User avatar
omniplex
Posts: 127
Joined: Thu Feb 10, 2011 1:52 pm
Location: Hamburg
Contact:

Re: Supporting mozjpeg for saving JPEG files

Post by omniplex »

o-l-a-v wrote:I'd really love this too :)
It's an idea, I'm guilty of creating a mozjpeg gallery on WikiMedia Commons, because I missed the fine print, that a better name would be Xiph.org Daala image test suite, mostly proving that BPG is in fact better. :o And I like their five built-in quant-tables, because whatever it is, at least they reduced it to five interesting cases. XnView could offer this as option in its UI. The libjpeg turbo folks and the mozjpeg folks apparently get along.

Unlike those wannabe- official libjpeg folks, who apparently break backwards compatibility in some kind of war against JPEG2000, JXR, ISO, etc. Their war might be justified, but breaking compatibility is not, and as long as XnView + MediaWiki + many others (excl. FFmpeg) cannot handle SignedShortLosslessBug.jpg they didn't hear the shot about "standards".
:bugconfirmed:
User avatar
foxyshadis
Posts: 387
Joined: Sat Nov 18, 2006 8:57 am

Re: Supporting mozjpeg for saving JPEG files

Post by foxyshadis »

*poke*

Anything? It's a drop-in replacement for libjpeg-turbo, better quality, same license. This is a no-brainer for classic and MP alike.
User avatar
xnview
Author of XnView
Posts: 34681
Joined: Mon Oct 13, 2003 7:31 am
Location: France
Contact:

Re: Supporting mozjpeg for saving JPEG files

Post by xnview »

foxyshadis wrote:*poke*

Anything? It's a drop-in replacement for libjpeg-turbo, better quality, same license. This is a no-brainer for classic and MP alike.
do you know if mozjpeg use SSE3 like jpeg-turbo?
Pierre.
User avatar
foxyshadis
Posts: 387
Joined: Sat Nov 18, 2006 8:57 am

Re: Supporting mozjpeg for saving JPEG files

Post by foxyshadis »

xnview wrote:
foxyshadis wrote:*poke*

Anything? It's a drop-in replacement for libjpeg-turbo, better quality, same license. This is a no-brainer for classic and MP alike.
do you know if mozjpeg use SSE3 like jpeg-turbo?
There is no simd minimum. It includes mmx, sse, sse2, altivec, etc, and will use whatever your processor supports. The build will work with whatever minimum CPU you set the compiler to. (-march 386 should even work.)
User avatar
xnview
Author of XnView
Posts: 34681
Joined: Mon Oct 13, 2003 7:31 am
Location: France
Contact:

Re: Supporting mozjpeg for saving JPEG files

Post by xnview »

from mozjpeg
'mozjpeg' is not intended to be a general JPEG library replacement.
It makes tradeoffs that are intended to benefit Web use cases and
focuses solely on improving encoding. It is best used as part of
a Web encoding workflow. For a general JPEG library (e.g. your
system libjpeg), especially if you care about decoding, we recommend
libjpeg-turbo.
Pierre.
User avatar
o-l-a-v
Posts: 5
Joined: Thu May 01, 2014 1:50 pm

Re: Supporting mozjpeg for saving JPEG files

Post by o-l-a-v »

Is that a reason not to add support for it?
I use xnconvert for images I use on web too. Would not be a bad move to have both the standard jpeg, plus mozjpeg support as I see it :)
Web-encoders' (https://imageoptim.com/mozjpeg , http://mozjpeg.codelove.de/) result of conversion looks promising, so I'd probably use mozjpeg for various other scenarios too. Like album art for my portable lossy music collection for instance :)
User avatar
xnview
Author of XnView
Posts: 34681
Joined: Mon Oct 13, 2003 7:31 am
Location: France
Contact:

Re: Supporting mozjpeg for saving JPEG files

Post by xnview »

i'll try to add it as a plugin
Pierre.
User avatar
foxyshadis
Posts: 387
Joined: Sat Nov 18, 2006 8:57 am

Re: Supporting mozjpeg for saving JPEG files

Post by foxyshadis »

Whoops, missed this. JPEG export and default saving should use mozjpeg, decoding could stick with libjpeg-turbo -- but I bet scaling takes 2-10x as long as decoding anyway. Either way, mozjpeg always saves higher quality than libjpeg and libjpeg-turbo; even if it's a little slower than turbo, I can't think of any reason someone would need realtime writing with xnview (like recording to mjpeg), to make it worth relegating to just a plugin.
User avatar
o-l-a-v
Posts: 5
Joined: Thu May 01, 2014 1:50 pm

Re: Supporting mozjpeg for saving JPEG files

Post by o-l-a-v »

Any news regarding mozjpeg and XnConvert/XnView? :)
obelisk
Posts: 406
Joined: Fri Jan 09, 2009 9:54 am

Re: Supporting mozjpeg for saving JPEG files

Post by obelisk »

XnView is a viewer that also happens to have some editing capabilities. I see no reason wasting limited resource (1 dev) adding every jpg lib under the sun because someone pixel peeping at 200% sees a benefit in saving 2kb.

Because libs like this are like sands on the beach. If you want you can make a plugin and use it yourself.

Yes, jpg is 30+ years old, any 'quality' improvements is the same as saving a few kb here and there.
Post Reply