Re: jpeg8 vs jpeg-turbo
On Wed, Apr 24, 2013 at 10:10:42PM +0800, Aron Xu wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 24, 2013 at 9:19 PM, Bill Allombert
> <Bill.Allombert@math.u-bordeaux1.fr> wrote:
> >
> > As IJG libjpeg maintainer, my plan is to move to libjpeg9 which has more feature.
> >
>
> From a user's prospective, I don't think adding bunches of not widely
> used features is that useful (I mean it's useful but not that
> important), but speed does matter a lot, especially on slower hardware
> like ARM-boards.
I think there are some misunderstanding about what offer libjpeg8:
1) by default, libjpeg8 creates JFIF files which are compatible with libjpeg62.
2) by default, libjpeg8 uses a different subsampling which lead to higher
quality output than libjpeg62.
However this leads to files which are not byte per byte indentical to what
libjpeg62 would produce, but this is in no way required by the JPEG standard.
Indeed the standard explicitely allow for different DCT implementation.
3) libjpeg8 implements a larger part of the JPEG standard, so it can read and write
JFIF files that are standard compliant but not supported by libjpeg62.
4) it also provides a number of extension to the standard, which are well documented.
So I do not think it is fair to restrict JPEG support in Debian to 1998 image
processing technology.
Cheers,
--
Bill. <ballombe@debian.org>
Imagine a large red swirl here.
Reply to: