[HN Gopher] Compressing Images with Neural Networks
___________________________________________________________________
Compressing Images with Neural Networks
Author : skandium
Score : 47 points
Date : 2024-03-17 18:28 UTC (4 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (mlumiste.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (mlumiste.com)
| esafak wrote:
| It is not going to take off if it is not significantly better,
| and has browser support. WebP took off thanks to Chrome, while
| JPEG2000 floundered. If not native browser support, maybe the
| codec could be shipped by WASM or something?
|
| The interesting diagram to me is the last one, for computational
| cost, which shows the 10x penalty of the ML-based codecs.
| dinkumthinkum wrote:
| I think it is an interesting discussion, learning experience
| (no pun intended). I think this is more of a stop on a research
| project than a proposal; I could be wrong.
| dylan604 wrote:
| Did JPEG2000 really flounder? If your concept of it being a
| consumer facing product as a direct replacement for JPEG, then
| I could see being unsuccessful in that respect. However,
| JPEG2000 has found its place in the professional side of
| things.
| esafak wrote:
| Yes, I do mean broad- rather than niche adoption. I myself
| used J2K to archive film scans.
|
| One problem is that without broad adoption, support even in
| niche cases is precarious; the ecosystem is smaller. That
| makes the codec not safe for archiving, only for
| distribution.
|
| The strongest use case I see for this is streaming video,
| where the demand for compression is highest.
| dylan604 wrote:
| But that's like saying it's difficult to drive your Formula
| 1 car to work every day. It's not meant for that, so it's
| not the car's fault. It's a niche thing built to satisfy
| the requirements of a niche need. I would suggest this is
| "you're holding it wrong" type of situations that isn't
| laughable.
| yccs27 wrote:
| There was absolutely an initiative to make J2K a
| widespread standard
| actionfromafar wrote:
| Huh, one more point for considering J2K for film scan
| archiving.
| geor9e wrote:
| The thing about ML models is the penalty is a function of
| parameters and precision. It sounds like the researchers
| cranked them to max to try to get the very best compression.
| Maybe later they will take that same model, and flatten layers
| and quantize the weights to can get it running 100x faster and
| see how well it still compresses. I feel like neural networks
| have a lot of potential in compression. Their whole job is
| finding patterns.
| amelius wrote:
| How do we know we don't get hands with 16 fingers?
| jfdi wrote:
| Anyone know of open models useful (and good quality) for going
| the other way? I.e., Input is a 800x600 jpg and output is 4k
| version.
| holoduke wrote:
| How much vram is needed? And computing power? To open a webpage
| you soon need 24gb and 2 seconds of 1000 watts energy to
| uncompress images. Bandwidth is reduced from 2mb to only 20kb.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-03-17 23:00 UTC)