I don't like it, but this is sort of the expected behavior for 'AI' based compression and denoising.
Think of it as encoding followed by decoding where encoding reduces an image to a 'prompt' and decoding a generation of a new image from that prompt.
These techniques have become quite popular in astrophotography and it makes me uncomfortable.
Note though that this strategy is not that fundamentally different from the classic method. There the steps are called analysis followed by synthesis.
Analysis step detects the degree of presence of preferred basis functions (for example, discrete cosine basis), the undesirable components discarded or down-weighted. Then in the synthesis phase, the bases weighted with their detected or accentuated strengths are recombined to obtain the image.
What's different this time is the nature of the bases and the Bayesian prior they encode.
Since this is by Apple, I’m certainly curious if this is aimed at becoming the new default format for Apple devices. What kind of effort does it take to do that, beyond getting the paper published?
On the PR summary page, the “speed” column should be labeled “time”. Time is lower-is-better, whereas speed means higher-is-better.
The BD rate column could also use a less cryptic label. (Though maybe the audience is paper reviewers and not me.) The paper itself doesn’t even write out what the BD acronym in “BD rate” stands for, but it seems like it would be fair and accurate and better to call the column maybe something like relative compressed size, and mention the exact metric in the caption — where there’s already an explanation of BD rate.
I’m somewhat confused by, and slightly skeptical TBH, of the device timings. Are they correct & fair? Why is the NN-only portion almost as fast on an iPhone 17 compared to a V100 when the V100 has 4x the FP throughput? Is it comparing apples to apples (ha!), and is the GPU implementation reasonable? The data suggests the GPU implementation is not saturating the GPU.
Also why are there several different GPU models? And why is V100 even used? V100 is four generations old and not even supported anymore.
Bjontegaard Delta-Rate (BD Rate) metric, proposed in 2001 by Gisle Bjontegaard, is a method for calculating the average difference between two rate-distortion (RD) curves.
It is extremely common in codec comparison, along with terms like PSNR, SSIM and VMAF ( which is newer and developed by Netflix so it tends to get explained a bit more )
>’m certainly curious if this is aimed at becoming the new default format for Apple devices.
I certainly hope not. Not unless it is deterministic and much much higher quality.
You're not comparing fairly. The author is intentionally using low-res images to illustrate how the compression works. You should compare these to, say, a JPEG compression at the same resolution and same bitrate. I think you'll find that this technique is quite an improvement to the compressions you already know and love.
It wouldn’t surprise me that due to bureaucratic processes, it’s still somehow the most readily available GPU for Apple researchers despite being almost 10 years old now. I recall even last year seeing V100s used by Microsoft researchers who weren’t working on LLMs.
Might have some sequential section or a block size that struggles to fill a V100 or a large chunk of CPU-only work or any number of things like that.
Just keep any numbers out of there. Remember what happened with the Xerox scanners and JBIG2 compression where numbers got substituted with similar looking numbers.
150ms to decode 12mp is also incredibly slow. That's like PNG territory of slow. A more flagship 50mp image would be... oof.
JPEG-XL is designed for archive-grade images. It hasn't been optimized (maybe not even designed?) for low bpp settings (less than 1 bit per pixel), and is awful below that, let alone 0.3 bpp or so. Plain old JPEG is much worse. Video codecs (and the image formats derived from them) have optimized for quality at low settings.
> 150ms to decode 12mp is also incredibly slow.
I think that's sufficiently fast. (Keep in mind that a 4k screen is about 8.5mp.) How fast do you want your slideshow to be?
A modern iPhone can capture at up to 48MP. If the performance scales linearly with pixel count, that would put tapping on a thumbnail to the full size being ready at over half a second. That's going to feel laggy. Now you can throw storage at the problem and pre-compute a downscaled intermediate, sure, but that doesn't fix it when you send the photo to someone else or whatever.
And competitive phones are doing 200mp captures (which is stupid in its own right but phone manufacturers and doing stupid things, name a more iconic duo)
Pretty sure these newer formats do the same.
we're in 2026, 240hz screens are becoming common. Nothing in the end-user experience should take more than 3-4ms. My personal goal when developing is keeping things at at least 60FPS and ideally 120 when building the whole stack with ASAN / UBSAN / stdlib's debug modes.
For instance when looking at this the first thing I thought was to try to make an installation which permanently recurses the codec's application on itself at each frame, to give the impression of a constantly moving landscape. Impossible on a smaller machine if computing a single frame takes 150ms.
I guess this is what happens when you chase after extremely low data rates but I’m not happy with the results.
You can see it in the hair as well. It seems very clear that it is engaging in a kind of texture synthesis.
So it seems to be looking at an area, and capturing the textural quality. And then reproducing that, so the overall effect is the same, but individual fibers or fuzzy bits are randomly generated from scratch.
And so yes, if you zoom in enough, the knitting looks completely wrong because the regular geometric pattern of irregular yarn it is made of has been replaced by a completely irregular pattern of irregular yarn.
In other words, it is essentially hallucination of details on a micro scale but not on a macro scale.
And I think that raises a really interesting philosophical question of what we consider to be valid image reconstruction from lossy compression.
Because on the one hand, this is no different from blurriness or even the kind of blocky JPEG compression we are familiar with. It's just pixels that are wrong. Those blocks don't appear in the original image. The blurriness isn't there in the original image.
But on the other hand, we see blurriness as being somehow more "honest", and we are easily able to recognize that blockiness is an artifact.
Whereas with textural hallucination, it is no longer clear what is being filled in versus what is original, because it's doing such a good job of emulating so many aspects of the original texture.
And it's really hard to say if one approach is better or worse than the other. It's probably more accurate to say that one is more appropriate than the other in different contexts. Like if it is just a normal news photograph, I am perfectly happy with a sharper image because it's not changing anything substantial – it's not changing the face of a world leader or the number of people in the photo. But on the other hand, if I am doing online shopping for shirts and I want to be able to zoom in on the texture, then it's incredibly important that the texture be accurate and not loosely hallucinated.
These denoising models, the autoencoders more directly so, work by (lossily) mapping the raw input to a very low dimensional representation. The other part generates the desired image back from the low-d representation.
The problem is that nothing, in the vanilla versions, prevent the the low-d version to be a semantics representation such as, Moon, dark hair etc and the generative part to take cues from the semantic representation to a generated sub-image.
The Samsung phone Moon image was likely a result of deliberate choice / company policy, but these things can happen without explicit intent.
And this is also going to depend on the level of compression being chosen. Obviously, the greater the compression, the lesser the fidelity. The lesser the compression, the greater the fidelity.
According to Chrome Stats from Google 2019 [1], ~80% to 85% of images served are above bpp 1.0 ( Bit per Pixel ). Around ~95% are above bpp 0.5. I doubt this have changed if not gotten worse as images gets larger over the years.
There are images such as logo or specific patterns that works a lot better and compressed at low bpp ( below 0.5 ). But those are rare on web, and in the case here, most of the images are photography.
Which means at sub 0.3 bpp it is a ridiculously low bitrate even for Web photo.
HEIC on iPhone 17 is based on HEVC, H.265 hardware encoder on iPhone 17.
VVC / VTM is H.266 Codec, the successor of HEVC / H.265 most people may have heard of one of its encoder called x265.
ETM is H.267 Codec, currently the best in class video compression codec that is still in development.
I assume everyone knows about AV1 and AV2 already since we are on HN.
CPU Encoder, generally speaking produce better image quality while hardware encoder tends to be fast but lower quality. Both HEIC and AV1 are based on hardware encoder on the iPhone 17. ( At least that is my read of it )
In case anyone wondering. JPEG XL is not designed or yet to be optimised for low bpp. It excels at 0.8 bpp onwards depending of type of image. So the result of XL would likely be very bad. Similarly to normal JPEG and H.264 encoder.
I am wondering if this image codec is deterministic.
I would imagine if we use this on the web the actual image size would be a lot smaller. Meaning a lot of the artifacts we see shouldn't matter. And clicking on it would bring up a different image file.
There is finally a possibility in the future some half decent image could be included within 14K frame of the webpage.
Encoding and Decoding speed is actually useable on today's hardware. Decoding in sub 100ms on iPhone 17.
And on another notes, VVC is doing extremely well in terms of compression rate and encoding / decoding complexity.
AV2 launching by the end of this month.
[1] Figure 1
https://www.spiedigitallibrary.org/conference-proceedings-of...
For example, if you zoom in on the trees in the first image, PICO has moved branches around and invented new branches that didn't exist. It does so in a way that looks very realistic, but it is still altering reality. The JPEG failure mode is much different: it causes ringing artifacts that are obviously artificial, but it doesn't move a branch from location A to location B.
Imo, generative AI and its derivatives should be completely shunned as image/video encoders. They are simply an inappropriate tool for the job. And I say that as an AIpilled token addict.
It would be like saying hey check out my amazing new text compression algorithm, 97x better than LZMA, then you look at the encoded file and it says "generate a romance story between two characters named Romeo and Juliet"
