{"id":76225,"date":"2016-02-17T06:03:30","date_gmt":"2016-02-17T14:03:30","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/graphpaperpress.com\/?p=76225"},"modified":"2016-02-17T07:10:41","modified_gmt":"2016-02-17T15:10:41","slug":"bpg-vs-jpeg-differences","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/graphpaperpress.com\/blog\/bpg-vs-jpeg-differences\/","title":{"rendered":"BPG vs JPEG: Everything You Need to Know"},"content":{"rendered":"
As the most widely used image format in the world and the standard format for image compression, we\u2019re all familiar with the JPEG. However,\u00a0it\u2019s far from perfect. After over 20 years of JPEG loyalty, is it time for something new?<\/p>\n
There are, of course,\u00a0the well-known GIF and PNG file formats, each popular in its own right. However, GIFs \u2013 while great for logos, icons and small animations \u2013 aren\u2019t so good for high resolution photo quality. The PNG, on the other hand, is great for photo color, quality and transparency, but lacks compression.<\/p>\n
The question is, can we look forward to a new standard of image format that not only combines the best of JPEGs and PNGs, but improves upon their faults?<\/p>\n
Created in 2014 by programmer Fabrice Ballard<\/a>, the BPG<\/a> has massive potential to replace the JPEG due to improvements in both quality and file size. In this post, we’ll discuss the BPG vs JPEG comparison:<\/p>\n The JPEG\u2019s standardization dates\u00a0back to as far as 1992. It has certainly served us well over the past two decades. Even by today\u2019s standards, it\u2019s a decent compression format. So, it\u2019s not so much that the JPEG\u00a0requires<\/em> a replacement.<\/p>\n However, is decent really enough? The web is a billion times more saturated than it was in the ’90s. In 2016, shouldn\u2019t digital\u00a0images be\u00a0great\u00a0<\/em>rather than simply adequate? An improvement on the JPEG standard could be a huge convenience for photographers, designers, developers and end users alike.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n It\u2019s a matter of\u00a0making the web a better place through improvement, and that’s where the new BPG format comes in. But first, a look at the JPEG’s notable shortcomings.<\/p>\n One great thing about JPEG compression is that you can control<\/em> it.\u00a0However, this is where we run\u00a0into a major trade-off.<\/p>\n The web is image-centric, with a high demand for quality visuals. If you want to show off awesome images on the web as JPEGs, you have to go with very little in terms of\u00a0compression.\u00a0But of course, with greater quality images comes greater bandwidth usage and decreased loading times.<\/p>\n In other words, if you want a JPEG to\u00a0look flawless, it’s going to\u00a0be\u00a0rather unwieldy.<\/p>\n The age of a piece of technology shouldn\u2019t matter if it\u2019s still solving a problem\u00a0in an effective manner.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n The issue here, however, is that because the web has evolved, expectations in both visuals and functionality have risen dramatically. Quality matters, but so does speed. Having its downfalls and not being open source, the JPEG’s evolution\u00a0has all but\u00a0stagnated, while the digital world around it changes by the hour.<\/p>\n The PNG is a beautiful file format, offering not only advanced transparency and superior photo quality, but also suitability with flat color areas such as for logos and icons.\u00a0Unlike the PNG format, the JPEG doesn\u2019t offer transparency.<\/p>\n Still, PNGs tend to come with file size issues when used for higher resolution photos, and in many cases will be bigger in size than JPEGs.\u00a0The PNG is\u00a0superior to the JPEG in many ways, but cannot compete in terms of file size. So, neither is the ideal option.<\/p>\n We\u2019ve seen where the JPEG\u2019s main faults lie. Now, let\u2019s take a closer look at\u00a0this fantastic new image format: the BPG.<\/p>\n The BPG format is very\u00a0young. The aforementioned Fabrice Bellard \u2013 also the creator of the FFmpeg<\/a> software project \u2013 invented the BPG image format specifically to replace the JPEG. Is the BPG truly an improvement on the JPEG? Let\u2019s see what it has to offer.<\/p>\n The BPG provides superior image quality and file size over the JPEG. In BPG format, you can have\u00a0an image of the same size as a JPEG but with double the quality<\/a>, or an image of equal quality at half the size.<\/p>\n This is a pretty major selling point, and the primary reason Bellard made the format in the first place. The vast majority of websites you typically visit\u00a0make use of JPEGs, so the BPG has potential to be an epically widespread solution to image quality and file size issues online.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Yep, the BPG format offers transparency \u2013 another great advantage over the JPEG. While PNGs also offer transparency, the BPG offers it alongside impressive compression ability.<\/p>\n The BPG is based on\u00a0HVEC<\/a>, a video compression standard twice as efficient as its predecessor (H.264). What this means\u00a0is that the encoding process is far more efficient than the JPEG\u2019s, hence why it yields better results.<\/p>\n On top of that, no special hardware is needed for the encoding and decoding of BPGs on smartphones and tablets. HEVC support is already included in most high-end models post-2014.<\/p>\n The icing on the cake for this enhanced image format is that it\u2019s open source. Unlike the JPEG, if the BPG\u00a0does<\/em> become an image format standard, it\u00a0won\u2019t become old and unimproved over time \u2013 it can be kept fresh through community contributions.<\/p>\n The BPG is a fine candidate for a JPEG replacement. There is indeed a catch, though: the lack of mass adoption.<\/p>\n It\u2019s going to be brutally difficult to come out with a solution to push something like the JPEG \u2013 an astronomically popular image format \u2013 off its throne. For perspective, around 700 million websites are using JPEGs. If the BPG is going to make a run at the JPEG, an enormous initial wave of usage is a prerequisite. The problem is that\u00a0BPGs currently only work on websites that use\u00a0a 56kb JavaScript library created by Bellard<\/a>.\u00a0For the format to gain widespread usage and stand a chance of becoming a standard, it would require built-in support in all popular web browsers. Developers would need to use and recognize the BPG in place of the JPEG. The BPG is simply\u00a0not there (yet).<\/p>\n Looking at how the JPEG offers decent but less-than-impressive results and no transparency features, it\u2019s abundantly clear that there absolutely is room for a replacement. After 20+ years of usage, switching to the highly efficient BPG format would appear to be\u00a0a no-brainer.<\/p>\n However, the BPG \u2013 providing better quality images and more compressed file sizes \u2013\u00a0has a ton of\u00a0growing to do.\u00a0So experiment with it \u2013\u00a0try BPGs on your website<\/a>. Tell other website admins, developers or photographers about it. Share your perspective in the photography and web communities. Bringing this format further into the spotlight will be vital to\u00a0the evolution of image quality.<\/p>\n Have you had any experience with using BPGs already? Does the format live up to your expectations and to its claims? Let us know\u00a0in the comments below!<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" As the most widely used image format in the world and the standard format for image compression, we\u2019re all familiar with the JPEG. However,\u00a0it\u2019s far from perfect. After over 20 years of JPEG loyalty, is it time for something new? There are, of course,\u00a0the well-known GIF and PNG file formats, each popular in its own […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":182107,"featured_media":76360,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3],"tags":[255,256,254],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\n\n
Does the JPEG Really Need<\/em> Replacing?<\/h2>\n
Problem #1: Quality and File Size<\/h3>\n
Problem #2:\u00a0It’s Outdated<\/h3>\n
Problem #3: No Transparency Features<\/h3>\n
What Can the BPG Offer That the JPEG Can\u2019t?<\/h2>\n
Advantage #1: It Offers Double the Quality<\/h3>\n
Advantage #2:\u00a0It\u2019s Transparent<\/h3>\n
Advantage #3: It\u2019s Based on HVEC<\/h3>\n
Advantage #4: It\u2019s Open Source<\/h3>\n
So BPG\u2019s Superiority is Clear \u2013 What\u2019s the Catch?<\/h2>\n
BPG vs JPEG: Conclusion<\/h2>\n