> I think it would be worthwhile to do two experiments with real people > > evaluating the images: > > 1) For a given file size with artifacts visible, which format > > produces the least terrible artifacts? > > 2) Which format gives the smallest file size with a level of > > artifacts that is so mild that people don't notice the artifacts?
Such studies are called "subjective tests", and they have been performed by many people (not by me, though, since I don't have a vision lab, i.e. a well-calibrated environment). Yes, the outcome of such tests is of course task-dependent, and dependent on the method you choose for the test. There is probably a good study by the EPFL from, IIRC, 2011, published at the SPIE, Applications of Digital Image Processing, and many many others. Outcome is more or less that JPEG 2000 and JPEG XR are on par for a given set of options (which I don't remember off my head) when evaluating quality by MOS-scores. This specific test did not attempt to measure the "detectibility" of defects (which I would call a "near-threshold" test), but rather a "scoring" or "badness" of defects (thus, "above threshold"). _______________________________________________ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
