Author Topic: Increase in productivity.  (Read 3762 times)

Sofocl

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 282
Hi Steven! Hello people!

1. Use for the cache (AlbumCovers, ArtistThumbs) "WebP" or "BPG" (or at least "JPG") instead of png.
2. Insert the cache (AlbumCovers, ArtistThumbs) into the container.

This will provide:

1 Reduced time load MB.
2 Reduced time opening tabs.
3 Reducing the use of RAM.
4 Reducing the use of HDD / SSD.
- Reducing the size of the cache
- Reduced of fragmentation
- Reduced time required to copy (backup)


As an experiment I converted about 2500 PNG (AlbumCovers) changed to jpg extension to png and put back, the size decreased from ~ 120 to ~ 20 mb, if this will webp in container the size will be ~10.

The difference when opening MB, tabs appreciable.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WebP
https://developers.google.com/speed/webp/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Better_Portable_Graphics
Last Edit: December 30, 2016, 07:49:50 PM by Sofocl
Sorry for my bad English.

pietergdp

  • Guest
This is a good idea, but I think a lot of people might prefer png, because I think it usually is higher quality than jpg (I'm no expert).
Maybe it could be given as an option?

Sofocl

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 282
WebP was created specifically for the small images, the cache is just perfect.

Comparison jpg png webp:


(JPG – 8,8 Kb, PNG – 378 Kb, WebP – 8,8 Kb)

(JPG – 11 Kb, PNG – 485 Kb, WebP – 11 Kb)

(JPG – 11 Kb, PNG – 438 Kb, WebP – 11 Kb)

(JPG – 70 Kb, PNG – 723 Kb, WebP – 70 Kb)

(JPG – 35 Kb, PNG – 619 Kb, WebP – 35 Kb)

https://developers.google.com/speed/webp/gallery1
https://developers.google.com/speed/webp/gallery2
Last Edit: October 05, 2014, 04:39:42 AM by Sofocl
Sorry for my bad English.

Bee-liever

  • Member
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3640
  • MB Version: 3.4.7737 P
WebP is certainly an improvement over jpg
but there is still quality loss when compared to png
MusicBee and my library - Making bee-utiful music together

Sofocl

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 282
If small thumbnails to see the difference is almost impossible, a performance increases significantly.

WebP have Lossless mode.

PNG file size: 215.8 KB

WebP-lossless file size: 152.4 KB
Sorry for my bad English.

hiccup

  • Editor
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4837
WebP is certainly an improvement over jpg

For small file sizes that's absolutely true.
But I tested out and compared webp some two years ago on higher resolution images and larger file sizes, and I didn't like what webp did to some details and subtle colors. For those I preferred the image quality of jpg above webp.
(but for use within MB that's probably academic)

For the suggested use of caching it might be sensible.
An important factor for possible gain to use it in MB might also be the encoding/decoding speed and cpu use of webp.
I can't say anything on that.

My personal opinion on this one: "if it ain't broke, don't fix it"

Sofocl

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 282
This discussion prompted me to remind about my request, which is still relevant.

Over the past time, new even more progressive formats WebP2, FLIF, have appeared that can give an even better size/quality ratio.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Lossless_Image_Format


Winamp (even considering that it has not been developed for almost ten years) works with covers faster than MB.;

MusicBee;


Winamp;


The number of albums and covers is the same, the cache is fully created, the cache size is about the same, pay attention to the CPU load, the MB load is much higher for fast and slow scrolling, and the missing covers in MB  for fast scrolling.



The winamp cache looks like this;

Several large cache files are significantly faster than many small ones (file system specifics).
Sorry for my bad English.


ClementNerma

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 17
I think the best idea would be to switch to the AVIF format, which is based on the new AV1 codec. It is royalty-free as well, so it would be a good candidate, and have a better quality than WebP at equivalent size.

The only downside is that it may not be implemented in the libraries currently use in MusicBee, so that may be a blocker.

hiccup

  • Editor
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4837
I think the best idea would be to switch to the AVIF format, which is based on the new AV1 codec.
It's a gut feeling, but I think JPEG XL may be a safer bet as a long lasting successor to jpg for the future.

Terry Walker

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 92
Hi Steven! Hello people!

1. Use for the cache (AlbumCovers, ArtistThumbs) "WebP" or "BPG" (or at least "JPG") instead of png.
2. Insert the cache (AlbumCovers, ArtistThumbs) into the container.

This will provide:

1 Reduced time load MB.
2 Reduced time opening tabs.
3 Reducing the use of RAM.
4 Reducing the use of HDD / SSD.
- Reducing the size of the cache
- Reduced of fragmentation
- Reduced time required to copy (backup)


As an experiment I converted about 2500 PNG (AlbumCovers) changed to jpg extension to png and put back, the size decreased from ~ 120 to ~ 20 mb, if this will webp in container the size will be ~10.

The difference when opening MB, tabs appreciable.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WebP
https://developers.google.com/speed/webp/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Better_Portable_Graphics

So, that's how it works? Okay got it.