[Interest] libjpeg vs. libjpeg-turbo/mozjpeg

[Mark Gaiser]

On Sat, May 23, 2015 at 10:23 AM, René J.V. <rjvbertin at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Since Qt depends on libjpeg I thought I'd ask what experience members on
> here have in using one of the (supposedly?) ABI compatible alternatives,
> libjpeg-turbo or mozjpeg. There is discussion within MacPorts to replace
> libjpeg with one of those alternatives, and force all ports to comply
> (which would affect Qt if MacPorts is still used "stock" in preparing the
> binary installation packages for OS X). This venture is complicated by the
> fact that libjpeg has been at version 9 for a while now, which is *not* ABI
> compatible with the alternatives.
>
> TIA,
> R.
>
>
The mozjpeg git page basically answers your question:
Quote:
---------------
 'mozjpeg' is not intended to be a general JPEG library replacement. It
makes tradeoffs that are intended to benefit Web use cases and focuses
solely on improving encoding. It is best used as part of a Web encoding
workflow. For a general JPEG library (e.g. your system libjpeg), especially
if you care about decoding, we recommend libjpeg-turbo.
---------------

So mozjpeg is out for the general jpeg purpose.
That leaves jpeg-turbo which is basically jpeg only with much improved
encode/decode performance. In general, jpeg-turbo should suffice wherever
you want to use jpeg images. One thing to note with jpeg-turbo is anything
that is using SmartScale (from jpeg 8+) won't work with it.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.qt-project.org/pipermail/interest/attachments/20150523/b1a30452/attachment.html>