Re: [Libjpeg-turbo-users] Position statement regarding mozjpeg

[Roger P. <rog...@gm...>]

On 3/9/14, DRC <dco...@us...> wrote:
> For those who have asked about the mozjpeg project and why that code
> wasn't integrated "upstream" (libjpeg-turbo is "upstream" in this case),
> I prepared a position statement with further details:
>
> http://www.libjpeg-turbo.org/About/Mozjpeg
>
> Executive summary:
>
> -- The jpgcrush code breaks ABI compatibility, so it would either have
> to be reworked using new get/set methods (a lot of trouble), or it would
> have to be #ifdef'ed, which means that Mozilla would have to maintain
> their own build anyhow.  Because of the ABI compatibility issue, the
> jpgcrush code, as currently written, could not be enabled by default in
> the official builds of libjpeg-turbo, nor could it be enabled in the
> builds that are deployed by various O/S distributors.
>
> -- My performance results indicate that most of the 10% improvement in
> compression ratio that Mozilla is claiming comes from simply using
> progressive encoding.  The addition of jpgcrush relative to "plain"
> progressive encoding is only about a 2% difference, on average (and no
> more than a 4% difference was observed in the best case.)

Maybe if they have some optimizing commits (where possible) you can
just cherry-pick them?
There may be some interesting commits in there :)
https://github.com/mozilla/mozjpeg/commits/master