On Sat, May 23, 2015 at 10:23 AM, René J.V. <rjvber...@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.
_______________________________________________ Interest mailing list Interest@qt-project.org http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/interest
