I've found these two image compressors online? Do they give lossless results?
https://saerasoft.com/caesium/
https://www.jpegmini.com/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-rp64paT13M
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i1_AkG7QSMs&t
Try StreamFab Downloader and download from Netflix, Amazon, Youtube! Or Try DVDFab and copy Blu-rays!
+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 11 of 11
Thread
-
-
Do a bitwise comparison (of the payload). If the resultant round-trip is identical to the source, it's lossless. That is literally the meaning of the term.
Scott -
JPEGMini is lossy
"perceptual quality" is a synonym for lossy
"without visible quality loss" is a synonym for lossy
This technology is integrated into JPEGmini Pro allowing users to reduce the file size of their photos and videos with limited quality reduction. JPEGmini technology is built around a perceptually aligned image quality measure, which reliably determines the maximum amount of compression which can be applied to each individual image or video frame without introducing visible artifacts
I'm wrong about Caesium - it offers a lossless option , but I didn't test it . -
-
Caesium didn't
ImageOptim didn't
Lossless webp sequence would be similar method to PNG sequence in ffmpeg using lossless=1 and output_%06d.webp . AVIF I wrote about in your other thread, currently there are issues with sequence writing
Code:1920x1080 8bitRGB anime png (vdub2 ?) 2,211,480 bytes Caesium PNG 2,170,199 bytes ImageOptim PNG 2,128,576 bytes OptiPNG 2,088,341 bytes PNGCrush 2,088,341 bytes PNGGauntlet 2,019,688 bytes Acrobat PDF (jpeg2000 lossless) 1,709,341 bytes Adobe jpeg2000 lossless 1,677,374 bytes ImageMagick jpeg2000 lossless + IMG2PDF 1,634,776 bytes ImageMagick jpeg2000 lossless 1,633,321 bytes Webp lossless 1,616,644 bytes BMF 2.01 max compression 1,542,148 bytes JPEG-XL lossless effort7 1,325,014 bytes JPEG-XL lossless effort9 1,292,448 bytes EMMA 0.1.25 (Images (slow) preset) 1,059,665 bytes
All lossless image format sequences will be much larger than your original lossy YUV video that had used temporal compression.
That's the reason why your sources were so compressed in the first place - they are lossy and they used video temporal compression
Looking at different PNG compression you might shave off a few %, but it's still going to be around 35x larger than the video . It's a waste of time. PNG format and compression is old. It's like you get a new computer which is faster than your 10 year old computer. Newer algorithms like JPEG-XL will have higher compression ratios. But I would still use PNG for compatibility purposes
Any "lossless" re-encoding will decompress to uncompressed , then recompress. So filesizes for the sequence will be massive in comparison
If PNG sequence makes it 35-40x larger, JPEG-XL sequence might be 15-25x - better but still much larger than video
Nothing you do for a lossless image sequence will make it remotely close in size to the original
Lossless video will be smaller than lossless image sequences for your soruces, because it can benefit from YUV temporal compression, but still massive. Maybe 10-20x .
For ggg.mkv - 12.7MB became 447MB as an 8bit PNG sequence (which is still technically lossy, because it's integer RGB). Does it matter if you use some super slow PNG compression that might take minutes per frame to make it 440MB ? It's still a massive increase . JPEG-XL might be around 300MB (just extrapolating from the data above ) - that's still a massive increase
Lossless HEVC video re-encode became 166MB - still a massive increase, but better than any image sequence
I hope you have a good reason for re-encoding , and a better reason for using image sequences. Or start buying hard drivesLast edited by poisondeathray; 8th Feb 2024 at 09:57.
-
All right, forget lossless formats, then. How do I make the best virtually/visually lossless image files, where the quality is so indistinguishable that even the most die-hard anime fans won't be able to tell the difference?
https://forum.videohelp.com/threads/413152-Best-Visually-Lossless-File-for-Highest-Quality -
Nobody would download a full image sequence of anything, not even lossy.
A minimally lossy image sequence will still be massively larger than the original video
Why would someone download something 10-40x the size for similar or technically lower quality ?
A Die Hard anime fan would say you are silly for doing this .
A Die Hard anime fan would want the original video for a full sequence - much smaller filesizes, no quality loss.
Notice all the Anime fans, like the ones who made your video, use video not image sequences . None of them use image sequences - for good reasons . If you're going lossless - use video. If you're going lossy - use video. Go to some anime fan sites - can you find 1 example of an image sequence ?
But a true Die Hard anime fan would demand the true original. Not a nth generation lossy re-encode which already has artifacts
PNG is ok for a few screenshots to demonstrate something. Not good for a full sequenceLast edited by poisondeathray; 8th Feb 2024 at 12:24.
-
-
Similar Threads
-
AviSynth+ Logo PNG
By kira90 in forum Newbie / General discussionsReplies: 0Last Post: 7th Nov 2023, 20:21 -
Cannot create animated PNG with VirtualDub2
By Bruce Banner in forum EditingReplies: 1Last Post: 15th Aug 2022, 19:15 -
Video compressors
By kelvin in forum Newbie / General discussionsReplies: 3Last Post: 16th Jun 2021, 12:46 -
HDMI capture softwares and lossless video compressors support the XV.Color
By Harvie Winters in forum Newbie / General discussionsReplies: 1Last Post: 1st Jul 2020, 15:56 -
How to convert TTML2+PNG to .sup ?
By foultayeb in forum SubtitleReplies: 2Last Post: 21st Jun 2019, 18:46