Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 23

Thread: Implement BPG format

  1. #1
    IV Newbie
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    5

    Default Implement BPG format

    Just wondering if Irfanview is planning on implementing BPG image format in a future release?
    http://bellard.org/bpg/

    Does anybody have any plug-ins in the works for testing?

    Thanks,
    Justin

  2. #2
    IV Amateur
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    hungary\budapest
    Posts
    13
    Version
    IrfanView 4.00
    OS
    32-bit Win XP Pro SP3
    CPU Cores
    4

    Default

    i second this request too. the encoder and decoder exe is ready, now it only needs to be interfaced to iw. a honey viewer or wtf is ready for viewing, but iw can batch, save, edit&c&c...

  3. #3
    Professional User Mij's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Camberley, Surrey, UK
    Posts
    2,763
    Version
    IrfanView 4.51
    OS
    32-bit Win 10
    CPU Cores
    3

    Default

    It does look to be a very good format judging by those examples on the website you linked to. The quality is far better than Jpeg at the same compressions. The Jpeg format is so entrenched though that it is going to be difficult to topple it from its market position. There have been a number of contenders for that top spot over the years that have not made it but BPG does look to be a bigger step forward than most of them.
    I would certainly support putting it forward to Irfan as a format to consider (assuming he is not already doing so).

  4. #4
    IV Amateur
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    hungary\budapest
    Posts
    13
    Version
    IrfanView 4.00
    OS
    32-bit Win XP Pro SP3
    CPU Cores
    4

    Question

    is this forwarded already? this will be the next main image format, the advantage is truly enormous. close to 2x. (well, 1.5 is close to 2, lawl)

    btw i forgot, there is even a dll in fabrices package, not just exes, that might make it even less of a fuss to utilise it somehow...

    please, i have tons of files already waiting for conversion/resaving... im not sure i want to learn sh and gtkdialog just to cobble together an interface to this encoder when this format will someway be in my fave image tool already, if only as a plugin by some third party if he for some reason doesnt fancy it himself.

    necroedit: and btw, webp sucks, esp compared to it. (and yet it became supported. why the resistance now?). it was received negatively (http://muizelaar.blogspot.hu/2011/04/webp.html), vs the glowing reviews of bpg. on doom9 as well. search the threads. the complained-about lack of webp browser support is also handled better, with a javascript decoder available to run on any browser. also an example: http://abload.de/image.php?img=1417868877483q5jbq.png and many other: http://xooyoozoo.github.io/yolo-octo...n&bpg=s&webp=s it 'smokes' webp, to quote them. and fabrice bellard is the guy of qemu and ffmpeg (mplayer&vlc's base) fame. worth looking at: http://bellard.org/bpg/lena.html
    Last edited by aaa3; 20.02.2015 at 04:02 PM. Reason: dont wanna make a new post

  5. #5
    Moderator Enterprise User Bhikkhu Pesala's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    East London
    Posts
    6,108
    OS
    64-bit Win 10
    CPU Cores
    1

    Default

    Please see the Sticky Thread.

  6. #6
    IV Amateur
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    hungary\budapest
    Posts
    13
    Version
    IrfanView 4.00
    OS
    32-bit Win XP Pro SP3
    CPU Cores
    4

    Thumbs down

    okay, so u think this is not a valid need and/or hasnt seen enough discussion. makes sense.
    Last edited by aaa3; 26.02.2015 at 08:46 PM. Reason: verbatim original message "okay, so u think this is not valid and/or hasnt seen enough discussion. makes sense." clarified

  7. #7
    Professional User Mij's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Camberley, Surrey, UK
    Posts
    2,763
    Version
    IrfanView 4.51
    OS
    32-bit Win 10
    CPU Cores
    3

    Default

    aaa3
    Are these "tons of files" that you have waiting already in bpg format and you want to convert them to some other, or are they in the other format that you want to convert to bpg?
    I too have "tons of files" but they are all in jpg format so have all the JPEG artifacts already on them. Converting to bpg will not get rid of them. The only advantage might be that they could be saved, artifacts and all, in a slightly smaller file size.

    I am sure that, if I had a camera that took pictures in bpg format I too would be asking for Irfanview to be able to open them. Until that happens though, I do not see myself actually using the format even if it was implemented. I added my name as a supporter because I recognise that it is a good format, but I have no wish to lead a campaign.

  8. #8
    IV Amateur
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    hungary\budapest
    Posts
    13
    Version
    IrfanView 4.00
    OS
    32-bit Win XP Pro SP3
    CPU Cores
    4

    Thumbs up

    hey, yes they r in jpeg and png of course, and usually at a very high res and quality. what id do is simply resize - sometimes not even to half, but quarter - and resave em in jpg but now that this new format is here [and thank god i somehow luckily came to be aware of it], and i have tried the standalone tool and was very impressed, there is no way im gonna use jpeg for this anymore. i should wait it out until the next release. i hope that clears this subthread off; and thanks for your help!

    (_ of course, why 'd i want to get rid of artifacts?, im fine with em, i just want lesser size, and if i get it without artifacts then why not bag that in as well. so what id normally do is to go from j95+ to j85 or j75, but now i get the same quality with half the size. (done a few ones manually. i kept j90's q at j45's size for some strawberry wallpaper png)

    this is a very practical use case. the list of new files just keeps growing, and i'll convert hundreds or thousands of my existing photos, screenshots&c as well to this. _)

    oh, and btw an example: lets say i have a file at j80 or so. and d b okay at j75 or j70 for it, but thanks to the interference when we save closely to the original quality, itwill look much worse than expected [from that q lvl had we been working from a clear source], and will only save letssay 5% instead of 10. so obviously its best to just leave em unmolested and suck up the unneeded extra q. now, however, one can use bpg, and get that 10% PLUS the technological gain, of lets conservatively say, 20%.
    the previous kind of degradation (artifacts now above my threshold lvl) was simply unacceptable for these files. and depending the num of files i feel now okay to convert, this can be a big gain.

    also for everyone who is about to temporarily fit a certain no of files onto a fix limited quota, like a dvd disc or a 2g pendrive, or 300m left unused on an 1g one. he will do a few batch runs perhaps combined with resizes, but now will get a 40% boost. jpeg is dead. (for this only ofc. &a few other sits where we create new content)

    so, sorry to have embrarrassed u, but as far as _i_ am concerned, i made up my mind and listing myself as in for this campaign. i wont use (in ca 80% of cases) any other file format from now on. (the rest being legacy compat exceptions)

    the creator of the format has done what he could, and made a library. it isnt rational to expect more from him than the basic building block. from now on its the application developers facing the end users who will have to act, wrapping it into convenience. the quicker, the better. and iw has no peer in the app field. im using it under linux since a while.
    Last edited by aaa3; 20.02.2015 at 08:32 PM.

  9. #9
    IV Amateur
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    hungary\budapest
    Posts
    13
    Version
    IrfanView 4.00
    OS
    32-bit Win XP Pro SP3
    CPU Cores
    4

    Default

    p.s., most cameras - even low end consumer ones - take their pics at ~q97+, when at highest res (oftentimes this is the default. i cringe at those file sizes and dimensions when used for trivial everyday 'disposable' pics). this is effectively png, and that q is also wholly unneccessary for a huge number of users. so they will resave, the question is only, that into what (previously it was 'with what settings'). or, well, they should have. too bad they dont, and just leave it as it came off of it. they dont even know what filesize is, let aloen that they can change it easily, along with other adjustments.

    not even speaking of that for poor devices like hi-res ('8mp', '21mp', etc) phones, it is literally an uncontestable waste, given that hardware artifacts and problems dominate at an order or two of magnitude stronger. those low end lenses and chips simply cant make acceptable pics above lets say 2mp, no matter at what resolution and jpg-qp they save their junk.

    a photo enthusiast obviously will not get this bpg benefit since its simply irrelevant for him, he has quality and, rightfully, archives it as it is instread of resaving...
    Last edited by aaa3; 20.02.2015 at 08:55 PM.

  10. #10
    Moderator Enterprise User Bhikkhu Pesala's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    East London
    Posts
    6,108
    OS
    64-bit Win 10
    CPU Cores
    1

    Default

    I have long used WebP format for high resolution images (click on the magnifying glass for the WebP version. The originals were scanned at 600 dpi from 6"x 4" photo prints, so they have some moire patterns) — at least modern browsers support it. The saving are also quite good compared to JPG. I didn't expect Irfan to implement WebP support, but he did because someone provided a plugin. Maybe he will do the same for BPG, if someone asks him. I doubt if I would use it. I don't even use WebP very often, but it's nice to have support for it in IrfanView.

    I haven't forwarded the request because I don't need it, and I don't think Irfan will be interested in supporting it, but I said the same about WebP too, and that was implemented in the next version.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •