lossless compression of still images - recommendations?

Robert Heller heller at deepsoft.com
Sun Feb 19 22:14:27 UTC 2017


At Sun, 19 Feb 2017 18:40:49 +0000 (UTC) "Ubuntu user technical support,  not for general discussions" <ubuntu-users at lists.ubuntu.com> wrote:

> 
> On Sun, 19 Feb 2017 13:26:48 -0500 (EST), Robert Heller wrote:
> >
> 
> > If the OP wants truely lossless compression, he is not going to be 
> > using JPEG.  JPEG is *lossy* compression.  He should be using PNG 
> > instead.
> 
> Of course, you are correct.  I meant to go back and edit that --- then 
> forgot.
> 
> But, my comment remains:  No two, seperately taken, identical images
> should result in an identical bit stream, or large sub-sets of the bit
> stream.  But, perhaps, this is the second time I've ever been wrong.  :-)

It might depend on the equipment taking the picture and the nature of the
scene. If it is an *artifical* scene with very carefully controlled lighting,
etc. it might be possible. But yes, with almost any natrual scene with natrual
lighting, it is likely impossible for there to be any possibility of near
identical scenes to have anything like even remotely similar bit streams.

What the OP might be able to do is do some sort of image processing and use 
some sort of statistical analysis to extract the "near-identical" parts of the 
images and remove them (or replace them with some sort of "not interesting" 
mask).  Basically a pre-processing step to cause the *saved* data set to only 
have the "small" parts where something interesting is happening and tossing 
the larger parts that are logically "unchanging" (and thus uninteresting).

> 
> Jonesy
> 
> 

-- 
Robert Heller             -- 978-544-6933
Deepwoods Software        -- Custom Software Services
http://www.deepsoft.com/  -- Linux Administration Services
heller at deepsoft.com       -- Webhosting Services
                                                      



More information about the ubuntu-users mailing list