Last Comment Bug 680385 - Firefox does not show arithmetic coded jpegs
: Firefox does not show arithmetic coded jpegs
Status: RESOLVED WONTFIX
:
Product: Core
Classification: Components
Component: ImageLib (show other bugs)
: Trunk
: All All
: -- normal with 12 votes (vote)
: ---
Assigned To: Nobody; OK to take it and work on it
:
Mentors:
http://filmicgames.com/Images/Patents...
Depends on:
Blocks:
  Show dependency treegraph
 
Reported: 2011-08-19 03:09 PDT by jmsmith22
Modified: 2015-04-13 15:06 PDT (History)
17 users (show)
See Also:
Crash Signature:
(edit)
QA Whiteboard:
Iteration: ---
Points: ---
Has Regression Range: ---
Has STR: ---


Attachments

Description jmsmith22 2011-08-19 03:09:40 PDT
User Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.18) Gecko/20110614 Firefox/3.6.18
Build ID: 20110614230723

Steps to reproduce:

Opened an arithmetic coded jpeg


Actual results:

Nothing was shown.


Expected results:

As arithmetic coding patents for jpegs have now expired and most of web pages' content are images, users a waiting 6 to 10% longer to see web pages for no reason.

Firefox could grab this opportunity to become the fastest web browser on earth by supporting arithmetic coded jpegs and advertising it to servers by sending the HTTP header:

Accept-Encoding: gzip,deflate,jpeg

After all, we did not had to wait 10 years to start using gzip compression.
Comment 1 Brian R. Bondy [:bbondy] 2011-08-19 10:23:10 PDT
Could you please attach a reference image?
Comment 2 jmsmith22 2011-08-19 13:03:56 PDT
Here's an example:

http://filmicgames.com/Images/Patents/bedroom_arithmetic.jpg

May you be interested on the expired patents background, you can read it here:

http://filmicgames.com/archives/778
Comment 3 Brian R. Bondy [:bbondy] 2011-08-19 13:15:14 PDT
Thanks for the info and reference image!
Comment 4 Brian R. Bondy [:bbondy] 2011-08-19 13:19:25 PDT
joe: Is this fair game to do? <link to this ticket>
<joe> bbondy: yeah; your best bet will be to implement it in libjpeg-turbo though
Comment 5 Brian R. Bondy [:bbondy] 2011-08-19 13:23:16 PDT
Seems that arithmetic encoding was added into libjpeg-turbo as of 1.1
So we may just need to upgrade to that to add support.

Reference: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=639672
Comment 6 Brian R. Bondy [:bbondy] 2011-08-19 13:32:40 PDT
This will be fixed already in Bug 650899.  I'll test with the reference image in this ticket though, thanks.

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 650899 ***
Comment 7 Joe Drew (not getting mail) 2011-08-19 13:41:00 PDT
There is some question of whether we want to support arithmetic coded JPEGs at all. Doing so means we've created a fragmented market, since we'll load images that no other browser does. To do that, there had better be a pretty good reason, and I don't know whether JPEG with arithmetic coding is that good reason.
Comment 8 Joe Drew (not getting mail) 2011-08-19 13:41:23 PDT

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 650899 ***
Comment 9 jmsmith22 2011-08-19 14:19:42 PDT
Apparently chromium already supports arithmetic code JPEGs, if comment 5 on the link I have provided is correct (cf. http://filmicgames.com/archives/778#comment-5404). So the market is already fragmented.
Comment 10 Justin Lebar (not reading bugmail) 2011-08-22 09:19:04 PDT
I don't think this is a duplicate of bug 650899.  See bug 650899 comment 12.  (Unless those huffman decoder changes I cherrypicked also include arithmetic decoding?  "arith" doesn't appear anywhere in the patch, which suggests to me that they don't.  But maybe that's wrong!)
Comment 11 Jeff Muizelaar [:jrmuizel] 2011-09-21 08:53:00 PDT
Does anyone have some good information on gains that arithmetic coding brings?

This post suggests it's pretty small:
http://cbloomrants.blogspot.com/2011/01/01-10-11-perceptual-metrics-warmup-jpeg.html
Comment 12 jmsmith22 2011-09-23 17:09:59 PDT
What is available on the literature is that arithmetic coding yields on average 7-10% reduction in comparison to optimized JPEGs.

For instance, on this paper:

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.62.3005&rep=rep1&type=pdf

you can read:

"One common technique is the arithmetic coding option proposed by JPEG [1], as most JPEG images are encoded using Huffman coding. A reduction of file size of about 7-10% can be achieved for lossless rate optimization."
Comment 13 Akkana Peck 2014-11-01 11:15:21 PDT
I discovered this bug when GIMP switched the default for saved JPGs to use arithmetic coding in development builds and my JPGs stopped working in Firefox. It's switched back now, but this may come up more often as other programs start to use arithmetic coding by default -- especially if Chrome and other browsers support it.
Comment 14 Jeff Muizelaar [:jrmuizel] 2014-11-01 11:22:41 PDT
I don't believe any other browsers support it. I just tried Chrome and Safari and neither did.
Comment 15 Akkana Peck 2014-11-01 12:07:12 PDT
Chromium here (on Debian sid) shows arithmetic coded images just fine. I think chrome/chromium uses the system library, so it probably varies by OS.
Comment 16 noel gordon 2015-04-13 06:27:33 PDT
(In reply to Jeff Muizelaar [:jrmuizel] from comment #14)
> I don't believe any other browsers support it. I just tried Chrome and
> Safari and neither did.

Indeed, Chrome does not support it, there are no plans to support it, and the related code files the come from upstream libjpeg_turbo are removed from the Chrome build.
Comment 17 Seth Fowler [:seth] [:s2h] 2015-04-13 15:06:26 PDT
(In reply to noel gordon from comment #16)
> Indeed, Chrome does not support it, there are no plans to support it, and
> the related code files the come from upstream libjpeg_turbo are removed from
> the Chrome build.

That seems definitive.

I'm resolving this bug again for now. (Please don't read too much into "WONTFIX".) Before reopening, we'd need at least two browser vendors to commit to supporting arithmetic-coded JPEGs. Mozilla could be one of them, but we won't implement this without evidence that it's going to be interoperable in the future.

For now, the right place to go to move forward with this is on the standards mailing lists, not in this bug.

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.