File talk:Comparison between JPEG, JPEG 2000 and JPEG XR.png

Worst at compression?

The text here states that "The basic JPEG is the worst at compression" however the image contradicts this.

The basic jpeg shows the smallest filesize which surely means than is the best at compression!

No, the file size of all three images is almost the same (almost 9 KB). And "worst" here clearly refers to quality-to-size ratio. Stop nitpicking. Fleet Command (talk) 12:30, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't make much sense to me

As the original photo is cropped from a JPEG compressed image, this comparison doesn't make sense. A RAW or TIFF or any other lossless compressed format should be used as original photo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.96.161.36 (talk) 12:27, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I took the same piece from Paris Night: http://m8y.org/tmp/paris_snip.png And just fed it into:

~/git/mozjpeg/cjpeg -quality 18 paris_snip.png > paris_snip.jpeg

-rw-rw-r-- 1 nemo nemo 9498 Jan 12 16:20 paris_snip.jpeg (9.28KiB)

~/git/mozjpeg/cjpeg -quality 17.9 paris_snip.png > paris_snip2.jpeg

-rw-rw-r-- 1 nemo nemo 9368 Jan 12 16:20 paris_snip2.jpeg (9.15KiB)

http://m8y.org/tmp/paris_snip.jpeg http://m8y.org/tmp/paris_snip2.jpeg

I dunno, I think mozjpeg is a lot more competitive with JPEG XR in this incredibly aggressive compression competition than the thing he used to generate this image. IMO would be fairer to JPEG to update this PNG with mozjpeg output.