Comment by lonjil
3 years ago
Actually, they did try QOI for the photographic images:
> Not shown on the chart is QOI, which clocked in at 154 Mpx/s to achieve 17 bpp, which may be “quite OK” but is quite far from Pareto-optimal, considering the lowest effort setting of libjxl compresses down to 11.5 bpp at 427 Mpx/s (so it is 2.7 times as fast and the result is 32.5% smaller).
17 bpp is way outside the area shown in the graph. All the other results would've gotten squished and been harder to read, had QOI been shown.
Thanks, I missed that.
I just ran qoibench on the photos they used[1] and QOI does indeed fair pretty badly with a compression ratio of 71.1% vs. 49.3% for PNG.
The photos in the QOI benchmark suite[2] somehow compress a lot better (e.g. photo_kodak/, photo_tecnick/ and photo_wikipedia/). I guess it's the film grain with the high resolution photos used in [1].
[1] https://imagecompression.info/test_images/
[2] https://qoiformat.org/benchmark/