Looks very cool assuming all the comparisons are correct & fair and there’s no major failure cases. Quick link to the HTML version of the paper to save you a couple of clicks: https://arxiv.org/html/2605.05148v1
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.
> 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.
JPEG has the great advantage that all JPEG artifacts look like JPEG artifacts. Newer codecs create artifacts that can be mistaken for part of the original image. That's a heavy price to pay for improved compression efficiency.
Interesting, but when I look at the sweater in the second image, the knitting just looks completely lost in the PICO vesion. The knitting looks correct but soft in other codecs. In the PICO version, it looks just completely wrong to me. The yarn structure has been replaced with a bunch of fuzzy strips. Similar problem in the third picture.
I guess this is what happens when you chase after extremely low data rates but I’m not happy with the results.
I think it's fascinating because it seems to be a completely different type of compression.
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.
This is a potential problem in "AI" denoising as well.
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.
I disagree that it's only on a micro scale. If you look at the picture of the parrots it completely changes the black/white pattern in the face of the red parrot and if you look at the picture of the green bicycle where the luggage rack attaches close to the center of the rear wheel, it's completely mangled, in contrast to the more "blurry" picture where you can clearly see the bolts where it's attached also the rods going from the wheel hub up to the luggage rack also looks very jagged and weird whereas they look fine in the blurry one. There are certainly other errors as well but those where the most jarring I Noticed at a quick glance. I don't think a compression algorithm that does this poorly on cherry picked examples are going to fly when you start throwing real pictures at them. If you are going to screw with the ground truth I bet you could get better results by throwing the blurry pictures in one of those "AI" upscalers.
I would say all of those examples you are picking are at the micro scale. Obviously it's a somewhat arbitrary division between macro and micro, what you consider to be the macro objects versus what you consider to be the micro details.
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.
I find it very curious that their new image codec did not really compare itself against other image codecs, but instead primarily video codecs pretending to do images. As in, no JPEG or JPEG-XL.
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?
> 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)
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.
this is interesting. would be cool to explore something like integrating a vlm to add a "semantic" term to the loss function. looking through the comparisons, some of the baseline codecs create meaningfully different details (as could be described by text) in the images.
Looks very cool assuming all the comparisons are correct & fair and there’s no major failure cases. Quick link to the HTML version of the paper to save you a couple of clicks: https://arxiv.org/html/2605.05148v1
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.
>what the BD acronym in “BD rate” stands for,
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.
> 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.
JPEG has the great advantage that all JPEG artifacts look like JPEG artifacts. Newer codecs create artifacts that can be mistaken for part of the original image. That's a heavy price to pay for improved compression efficiency.
> 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?
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.
Interesting, but when I look at the sweater in the second image, the knitting just looks completely lost in the PICO vesion. The knitting looks correct but soft in other codecs. In the PICO version, it looks just completely wrong to me. The yarn structure has been replaced with a bunch of fuzzy strips. Similar problem in the third picture.
I guess this is what happens when you chase after extremely low data rates but I’m not happy with the results.
I think it's fascinating because it seems to be a completely different type of compression.
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.
This is a potential problem in "AI" denoising as well.
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.
I disagree that it's only on a micro scale. If you look at the picture of the parrots it completely changes the black/white pattern in the face of the red parrot and if you look at the picture of the green bicycle where the luggage rack attaches close to the center of the rear wheel, it's completely mangled, in contrast to the more "blurry" picture where you can clearly see the bolts where it's attached also the rods going from the wheel hub up to the luggage rack also looks very jagged and weird whereas they look fine in the blurry one. There are certainly other errors as well but those where the most jarring I Noticed at a quick glance. I don't think a compression algorithm that does this poorly on cherry picked examples are going to fly when you start throwing real pictures at them. If you are going to screw with the ground truth I bet you could get better results by throwing the blurry pictures in one of those "AI" upscalers.
I would say all of those examples you are picking are at the micro scale. Obviously it's a somewhat arbitrary division between macro and micro, what you consider to be the macro objects versus what you consider to be the micro details.
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.
I saw mentioned such artifacts when one video was reviewing DLSS from Nvidia.
Some Notes.
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...
I find it very curious that their new image codec did not really compare itself against other image codecs, but instead primarily video codecs pretending to do images. As in, no JPEG or JPEG-XL.
150ms to decode 12mp is also incredibly slow. That's like PNG territory of slow. A more flagship 50mp image would be... oof.
> As in, no JPEG or JPEG-XL.
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?
> 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)
> How fast do you want your slideshow to be?
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.
would be great to have the weights somewhere
this is interesting. would be cool to explore something like integrating a vlm to add a "semantic" term to the loss function. looking through the comparisons, some of the baseline codecs create meaningfully different details (as could be described by text) in the images.
What would this be used for?