Google's JPEG encoder reduces image size by 35%, could help you save mobile data in the future


Google’s new open source image compression algorithm is capable of reducing the size of JPEG files by 35 percent, without compromising image quality too much, and the results it produces are compatible with all web browsers and image editing software.

Called Guetzli, which is apparently Swiss German for cookie, the new JPEG encoder does its magic during the so-called quantization stage of image compression, which is when the encoder tries to strike a balance between removing detail to keep size down, without obliterating the source image.

Guetzli uses what Google’s calling a “psychovisual model” to reduce file size, which approximates color perception and “visual masking” more thoroughly than other encoders. This, however, comes at a cost, and in this case that’s time, as Guetzli is decidedly slower than other image compression methods out there.

Check out these examples to get a better idea of how Guetzli works:



As you can see, the new encoder fares better than libjpeg, although, as we said above, it needs more time to produce results.

Here is another example:



Guetzli is open source and is good news for everyone, as it could help substantially reduce the size of image content online, as well as in apps. This would mean faster loading times and less data used.

source: Google via TheNextWeb

FEATURED VIDEO

4 Comments

1. PHYCLOPSH

Posts: 654; Member since: Jun 28, 2014

Sounds promising. However, I can see clearly in the Guetzli cat's eye - significant color information has been lost when compared to the libjpeg standard. This area could definitely use improvement.

2. Andrewtst

Posts: 697; Member since: Jan 25, 2009

The cat eyes obvious showing the color is faded than libjpeg standard. This show Guetzli compression output less appealing. Shall be improve else it is not a good compression algorithm.

3. marorun

Posts: 5029; Member since: Mar 30, 2015

Humm i find Guetzli to be more close to the original image in fact. The libjpeg seem a lots more different.

4. xondk

Posts: 1904; Member since: Mar 25, 2014

in the wire through air, sure. Cat? which is a more detailed picture, there's significant colour loss, which if you ask me is generally a bad thing. Add that whole JPG is still the standard, more and more are moving towards other formats, specifically png and such because lets face it, unless _ALL_ jpg's are converted to take up less space, this whole thing isn't going to save you a ton of data, unless google re-compresses on the way to you? and even then, I don't think the saving will be significant. Because you'd still have all the none JPG information.

Latest Stories

This copy is for your personal, non-commercial use only. You can order presentation-ready copies for distribution to your colleagues, clients or customers at https://www.parsintl.com/phonearena or use the Reprints & Permissions tool that appears at the bottom of each web page. Visit https://www.parsintl.com/ for samples and additional information.
FCC OKs Cingular's purchase of AT&T Wireless