I'm going to guess that if they even have most of these features, they've probably just stolen existing technology and called it their own. Much like most "high performance proprietary video compression methods" these days are just ripoffs of H.264 (see SVQ3 and RV30/RV40), I would not at all be surprised if even their non-vaporware tech is copied.
1.5x better image compression than JPEG-2000 is rather easy; H.264 can pull that off handily with intra compression. 2x better than MP3? They're probably using HE-AACv2. 2x better than PNG isn't difficult either; lossless wavelet or just something FFV1-style should be sufficient. 25% better than zip? LZMA.
Of course, eventually people will realize that almost all this stuff is patented up the wazoo...
Another thing I found rather amusing was "5x better than JPEG, 1.5x better than JPEG-2000"; implying that somehow JPEG-2000 was over three times better than JPEG...
Comments
I'm going to guess that if they even have most of these features, they've probably just stolen existing technology and called it their own. Much like most "high performance proprietary video compression methods" these days are just ripoffs of H.264 (see SVQ3 and RV30/RV40), I would not at all be surprised if even their non-vaporware tech is copied.
1.5x better image compression than JPEG-2000 is rather easy; H.264 can pull that off handily with intra compression. 2x better than MP3? They're probably using HE-AACv2. 2x better than PNG isn't difficult either; lossless wavelet or just something FFV1-style should be sufficient. 25% better than zip? LZMA.
Of course, eventually people will realize that almost all this stuff is patented up the wazoo...
Another thing I found rather amusing was "5x better than JPEG, 1.5x better than JPEG-2000"; implying that somehow JPEG-2000 was over three times better than JPEG...
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/51/JPEG_JFIF...