Top Document: JPEG image compression FAQ, part 1/2
Previous Document: [17] How does JPEG work?
Next Document: [19] Could an FPU speed up JPEG? How about a DSP chip?
See reader questions & answers on this topic! - Help others by sharing your knowledge
The JPEG spec defines two different "back end" modules for the final output of compressed data: either Huffman coding or arithmetic coding is allowed. The choice has no impact on image quality, but arithmetic coding usually produces a smaller compressed file. On typical images, arithmetic coding produces a file 5 to 10 percent smaller than Huffman coding. (All the file-size numbers previously cited are for Huffman coding.) Unfortunately, the particular variant of arithmetic coding specified by the JPEG standard is subject to patents owned by IBM, AT&T, and Mitsubishi. Thus *you cannot legally use JPEG arithmetic coding* unless you obtain licenses from these companies. (Patent law's "experimental use" exception allows people to test a patented method in the context of scientific research, but any commercial or routine personal use is infringement.) I recommend that people not use JPEG arithmetic coding; the space savings isn't great enough to justify the potential legal hassles. In particular, arithmetic coding *should not* be used for any images to be exchanged on the Internet. Even if you don't care about US patent law, other folks do.
User Contributions:
aralen for sale https://chloroquineorigin.com/ - aralen where to buy malarone buy chloroquine uk https://chloroquineorigin.com/
Comment about this article, ask questions, or add new information about this topic:
Top Document: JPEG image compression FAQ, part 1/2
Previous Document: [17] How does JPEG work?
Next Document: [19] Could an FPU speed up JPEG? How about a DSP chip?
Part1 - Part2 - Single Page
[ Usenet FAQs | Web FAQs | Documents | RFC Index ]
Send corrections/additions to the FAQ Maintainer:
jpeg-info@uunet.uu.net
Last Update March 27 2014 @ 02:11 PM