Community
cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Highlighted
Beginner
23 Views

JPEG XR vs JPEG performance

Jump to solution
Hello,

What is the performance difference between the normal JPEG and JPEG XR codec? I just need a rough estimate if someone knows.

Basically, is it as fast or ten times as slow per pixel?

Also, is it as parallelizable as the normal JPEG codec in 7.0?

If there's a noticable difference in performance for lossy vs non-lossy in XR that would also be interesting to know.

The context I have is that I'm currently using the normal JPEG codec for a VNC-like implementation and I'm wondering if I should switch/offer JPEG XR as well. For low bandwidth scenarios it seems I should but I'm uncertain for CPU bound scenarions.

Cheers,
Mikael Grev
0 Kudos

Accepted Solutions
Highlighted
23 Views
Hello Mikael,

No betas available for the Mac. We don't have a standalone version of the IPP library for Mac OS X, it's only distributed as part of the Intel compiler. There is a beta program from the next major release of the compiler, but I was not able to identify a beta version of that, either, for the Mac.

Have to wait until the Mac version of the compiler is released, I'm afraid I don't know if that will be coincident with the Windows and Linux versions or delayed. Might want to check on the compiler forum.

Paul

View solution in original post

0 Kudos
7 Replies
Highlighted
23 Views
Hi Mikael,

the main adavntage of JPEG-XR codec is support for extended dynamic range images (bit depth bigger than 8-bits per color channel as it is in traditional JPEG). There are also number of other improvements, like tiling support and 32-bit image width and height instead of 16-bit in traditional JPEG. Coding schema used in JPEG-XR is more efficient, that means JPEG-XR lossy coding can provide better compression ratio while maintain visual quality at good level.
From performance point of view, a good software implementation of JPEG-XR lossycodec should be a bit slower then a good implementation of lossy JPEG codec.
Note, in IPP we have good enough JPEG codec implementation, which we've work on during years. The JPEG-XR codec was just implemented in IPP 7.0 beta and is not yet completely optimized.
Do you also consider Google's WebP image compression as possible candidate for your application?

Regards,
Vladimir
0 Kudos
Highlighted
Beginner
23 Views
Thanks Vladimir,

Basically I only need the increased compression rate. The question is whether the better compression rate is worth it considering the increased CPU load.

So, do you have any comparisons between the two CPU wise?

Is JPEG XR twice or more like 20 times as slow as JPEG for say .75 quality?

I understand that the XR algo will be better but i need a ball park here since 20 times as slow wouldn't be usable in my scenario. I think the cutoff point is somewhere around 5-7 times as slow. Any slower than that would not work.

WebP is an alternative. I will try to get performance numbers from it as well.

Cheers,
Mikael

0 Kudos
Highlighted
Beginner
23 Views
Hasn't anyone any performance numbers to share? I can't be the only one that's wondering how fast it is compared to normal JPEG..

Cheers,
Mikael
0 Kudos
Highlighted
23 Views
Hello Mikael,

We haven't compiled any numbers that compare standard JPEG codec compression/decompression performance to JPEG XR codec compression/decompression. The only numbers we have at this time show approximately 1.5x improvement for JPEG XR compression when compared to the Microsoft WIC JPEG XR encode and similar decompression performance when compared to the Microsoft WIC JPEG XR codec.

The performance improvement when using IPP to accelerate the IJG library typically provides around a 2x improvement. Of course, the precise speedup depends on the size of your image and the specific processor and memory and other elements in the system.

Please see http://www.intel.com/performance/resources/benchmark_limitations.htmfor more information regarding performance benchmarks.

If you could locate some relative comparisons between JPEG and JPEG XR on the web you might be able to make an estimate. Keep in mind that JPEG XR (aka HD Photo) was primarily designed to provide better quality and dynamic range at a higher compression ration with less memory overhead then JPEG. I believe they only wanted to keep performance on par with JPEG. You can find many references on the JPEG XR wikipedia page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JPEG_XR.

Regards,

Paul
0 Kudos
Highlighted
Beginner
23 Views
Thanks for sharing what you know Paul.

I will probably make some benchmarks myself later on and I'll post my findings here when I do.

Btw, is there a 7.0 beta for the Mac?

Cheers,
Milkael
0 Kudos
Highlighted
23 Views
Hello Mikael,

No betas available for the Mac. We don't have a standalone version of the IPP library for Mac OS X, it's only distributed as part of the Intel compiler. There is a beta program from the next major release of the compiler, but I was not able to identify a beta version of that, either, for the Mac.

Have to wait until the Mac version of the compiler is released, I'm afraid I don't know if that will be coincident with the Windows and Linux versions or delayed. Might want to check on the compiler forum.

Paul
0 Kudos
Highlighted
24 Views
Hello Mikael,

No betas available for the Mac. We don't have a standalone version of the IPP library for Mac OS X, it's only distributed as part of the Intel compiler. There is a beta program from the next major release of the compiler, but I was not able to identify a beta version of that, either, for the Mac.

Have to wait until the Mac version of the compiler is released, I'm afraid I don't know if that will be coincident with the Windows and Linux versions or delayed. Might want to check on the compiler forum.

Paul

View solution in original post

0 Kudos