Thank you! It looks amazing. So unless processing speed or memory requirements being a handicap, the FLIF could be a real generic graphics compression candidate :-)
Very good question. Do you or anyone else have a good test set of such images?
My gut feeling says that JBIG2 probably outperforms FLIF on repetitive images (e.g. text), since it specifically detects such patterns. On non-repetitive images, maybe FLIF is better. But it would be nice to have some benchmarks.
Comments
How does it compare to fax Group 4 compression [1] or JBIG2 [2] for 1bpp -e.g. black and white- images?
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_4_compression
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JBIG2
Here are some results for a few black & white images from https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:PD-ScottForesman : (I only compare to JBIG2, not Group 4, since JBIG2 is supposed to be the best of those two)
Thank you! It looks amazing. So unless processing speed or memory requirements being a handicap, the FLIF could be a real generic graphics compression candidate :-)
Yes, that's the goal :)
Very good question. Do you or anyone else have a good test set of such images?
My gut feeling says that JBIG2 probably outperforms FLIF on repetitive images (e.g. text), since it specifically detects such patterns. On non-repetitive images, maybe FLIF is better. But it would be nice to have some benchmarks.
I was interested in how they compare in compression terms. Anyway, remaining JBIG2 patents expire in 2019.