Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

Vizzywig 4K Footage (Anamorphic Lens - Swift M3 Stabilizer)

@Michael

Message sent, thank you!
 
Thank you Wayne,

I hope all the issues will be fixed, I'm really excited about this app, and I hope to have a smooth jpg footage.

Jean
 
Yeah, that's what the newer Jpeg format was about, getting rid of artifacts by extending rendering across macro block boundaries instead if the screen, it has similar visual performance to jpeg2000 for a fraction of the processing requirements.
 
Wayne Morellini said:
Yeah, that's what the newer Jpeg format was about, getting rid of artifacts by extending rendering across macro block boundaries instead if the screen, it has similar visual performance to jpeg2000 for a fraction of the processing requirements.
Click to expand...

Wayne, do this codec has a particular name? Or it is like jpeg(dot)something?
 
Jpeg XR, craps over Jpeg apparently, but it is not used much. They do have an open source library of it.

I wish Apple used it, but h264 and h265 intra techniques should be available.

A nice writeup, it appears that feature I mentioned is particularly useful at lower bit rates instead:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JPEG_XR

Now somebody redid the JPEG page, and it seems that modern jpeg is doing better in quality by the claims. I personally would not want to use JPEG at more than 5:1 for any professional stuff, but they seem to talk like 15:1 is where you should worry, which I would be wanting to flush down the toilet in the old days. Its late and I haven't pixel peeped this yet.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JPEG#JPEG_filename_extensions
 
Had a look at the 15:1 jpeg example, and Toilet flush. They should have showed 5:1/6:1 instead of jumping from 2.6:1 to 15:1. Sorry to waste every bodies time. Just can't trust everything people tell you is real.
 
Wayne Morellini said:
Had a look at the 15:1 jpeg example, and Toilet flush. They should have showed 5:1/6:1 instead of jumping from 2.6:1 to 15:1. Sorry to waste every bodies time. Just can't trust everything people tell you is real.
Click to expand...

Great links, thank you.
in fact, they jumped from a decent 2.6:1 to a not usable 15:1. I've found these people, rspecially this Brad Larson, that seems to know how to calculate variation in iphone camera jpgs. Maybe it can be interesting (it brings to an old discussion about 645 Pro and Tiff from iphone camera) http://stackoverflow.com/questions/12198257/capturing-iphone-camera-data-as-never-compressed
 
Thanks for that. Yeah, and they called it like it was just breaking down, like how you would expect 5:1 to be 10-15 years ago, rather than how it looked. JPEG is interesting, because there is wide difference in compression quality, and it seems to have at least doubled in the last x decades. I don't know if they have run out of steam yet. I got the figures wrong, I think professional quality might have been closer to 3:1, and latter this became 5:1 or so.

I'd like to work on my own compression technology to try to side step things and simplify it. I'm hoping to proof it on my embedded OS project for a new high performance to energy ratio processing platform. Unfortunately, I need a few million to get everything running like I want, but I can do the whole thing in a virtual machine more slowly instead.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top