I met Kevin Hughes yesterday and was checking out his excellent Kev's News, now in my blogroll. Kevin is one of only 6 people in the WWW hall of fame, created the idea of image maps among other things, and is an amazing guy.
I saw this article in Kev's News which backs up Allume's claim that they can losslessly compress JPEG files by up to 30%. This is amazing, dramatic, and has far-reaching consequences. I hope it is independently verified and turns out not to be a bogus claim, always a possibility with things you read on the web, though this looks legit to me.
It also points out that the JPEG compression algorithm could have been 25%-30% better than it is. Think of all those billions of bytes of wasted space all over the world! Think of how many more pictures you could have fit on your 256MB flash card! I think we should remove the "E" and call it JPG from now on (JPEG is an acronym for Joint Project Expert's Group) and give the "E" to Allume with great ceremony.
Allume, please combine your algorithm with JPEG and license it to camera manufacturers as soon as you can!
1 comment:
First off, mr. Glenn Reid,
JPEG stands for Joint Photographic Experts Group (see www.jpeg.org), NOT
Joint Projects Expert Group!
Secondly, If allume were that great, why did they not implement that compression technology, when JPEG entered the main stream market?, they've had some 19 years to develop this compression scheme! (1986-2005) , so I would'nt go as far as you have. It's nice to see that JPEG pictures can be compressed, but, on the other hand, we have JPEG2000 which is FAR better than JPEG. Try eg. to compress a picture with some text in it at 95% quality for both JPEG and JPEG2000, and you'll easily see what I mean. What really should be implemented in cameras these days was JPEG2000, and that the cameras could record in 48bits instead of 24bits.
Best regards:
Jacob Eskildsen /
jacobeskildsen(at)hotmail(dot)com
Post a Comment