You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Thank you for publishing this, it is interesting if nothing else. However I am questing the efficacy of this over lowering the quality factor of a jpg file. Given 99% of the files I deal with are jpgs. The first thing I did when I got this was use it to compress a .jpg into a ,mcq file and did indeed get a lot smaller. Sadly I am not on the computer I have the project built on or I would give exact images and numbers. And I was able to re-inflate the file back into a jpg. There were slight visual differences, nothing major, and I would have a hard time pointing them out. Kind of like the image flickers a bit going between the two, but after the flicker it is hard to tell exactly what changed. However, looking at the file sizes, the re-inflated jpg was many times larger than the original source jpg. I am assuming the jpg was inflated at 100% quality so as to not introduce any losses or distortions to the .mcq format but until things actually intrinsically use the .mcq format, conversion is going to be an ugly reality, and inflating files so they are significantly larger than they were to start with may present a bit of an issue.
Something to think about perhaps, could a similar model be used to determine the best quality factor for jpg compression on a file by file basis. I know 99% of the world just uses whatever the software they are using defaults to and rarely or never change it. It would be interesting to have an AI that could look at the image and say yea, that one can get cranked way down or that one needs to be near perfect and adjust it on an image by image basis.
reacted with thumbs up emoji reacted with thumbs down emoji reacted with laugh emoji reacted with hooray emoji reacted with confused emoji reacted with heart emoji reacted with rocket emoji reacted with eyes emoji
-
Thank you for publishing this, it is interesting if nothing else. However I am questing the efficacy of this over lowering the quality factor of a jpg file. Given 99% of the files I deal with are jpgs. The first thing I did when I got this was use it to compress a .jpg into a ,mcq file and did indeed get a lot smaller. Sadly I am not on the computer I have the project built on or I would give exact images and numbers. And I was able to re-inflate the file back into a jpg. There were slight visual differences, nothing major, and I would have a hard time pointing them out. Kind of like the image flickers a bit going between the two, but after the flicker it is hard to tell exactly what changed. However, looking at the file sizes, the re-inflated jpg was many times larger than the original source jpg. I am assuming the jpg was inflated at 100% quality so as to not introduce any losses or distortions to the .mcq format but until things actually intrinsically use the .mcq format, conversion is going to be an ugly reality, and inflating files so they are significantly larger than they were to start with may present a bit of an issue.
Something to think about perhaps, could a similar model be used to determine the best quality factor for jpg compression on a file by file basis. I know 99% of the world just uses whatever the software they are using defaults to and rarely or never change it. It would be interesting to have an AI that could look at the image and say yea, that one can get cranked way down or that one needs to be near perfect and adjust it on an image by image basis.
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions