Crushing Images

posted 6 years ago

I'm working on a general-purpose image server in Go. Part of the project is to serve dynamically compressed jpeg files at the requested quality (0 to 100).

Decode & Encode

My first attempt was to read in the image from a file, and write it out with a new quality.

// crush.go

package main

import (
  "fmt"
  "os"
  "image/jpeg"
)

func main() {
  for i := 90; i > 0; i -= 10 {
    Crush("image.jpg", i)
  }
}

func Crush(filename string, quality int) {
  file, _ := os.Open(filename)
  defer file.Close()
  img, _ := jpeg.Decode(file)

  // image.jpg -> [email protected]
  copyname := fmt.Sprintf("%[email protected]%d.jpg", filename[0:len(filename) - 4], quality)
  copy, _ := os.Create(copyname)
  jpeg.Encode(copy, img, &jpeg.Options{ Quality: quality })
}

It's quick and dirty (no error checking) but it achieves the goal of lossy image compression. Let's take it for a spin.

import "time"

func Crush(filename string, quality int) {
  start := time.Now()

  // previous Crush code

  elapsed := time.Since(start).Seconds()
  fmt.Printf("%s: %s ~ %.2fs\n", copyname, stat(file, copy), elapsed)
}

func stat(file, copy *os.File) string {
  before, after := size(file), size(copy)
  pct := 100.0 - 100.0 * (float64(after) / float64(before))
  return fmt.Sprintf("%d --> %d (%.2f%%)", before, after, pct)
}

func size(file *os.File) int64 {
  stat, _ := file.Stat()
  return stat.Size()
}

Running the program creates nine new images and prints some information.

$ go run crush.go
[email protected]: 4166906 --> 2634955 (36.76%) ~ 1.42s
[email protected]: 4166906 --> 1611460 (61.33%) ~ 1.35s
[email protected]: 4166906 --> 1286538 (69.12%) ~ 1.37s
[email protected]: 4166906 --> 1072509 (74.26%) ~ 1.36s
[email protected]: 4166906 --> 931004 (77.66%) ~ 1.34s
[email protected]: 4166906 --> 806931 (80.63%) ~ 1.34s
[email protected]: 4166906 --> 674063 (83.82%) ~ 1.32s
[email protected]: 4166906 --> 520800 (87.50%) ~ 1.28s
[email protected]: 4166906 --> 335942 (91.94%) ~ 1.30s

Real Compression

Curious to see how ten lines of Go stacked up against proven compression tools, I searched for a while and came upon tjko/jpegoptim used by the imageoptim tool.

$ brew install jpegoptim
$ jpegoptim --help

Try it out with a quality of 80.

$ jpegoptim --dest=tmp --max=80 image.jpg
image.jpg (...) 4166906 --> 1609028 bytes (61.39%), optimized.

Sweet. The Go program got 61.33% for 80, which is basically the same. They must be doing a little lossless optimization to achieve the extra 0.06%, but it's insignificant. It does seem faster tho.

# crush.rb

require 'benchmark'

def crush(filename, quality)
  copyname = '%[email protected]%d.jpg' % [ filename[0...-4], quality ]
  bm = Benchmark.measure do
    `jpegoptim --stdout --max=#{quality} #{filename} > #{copyname}`
  end
  puts '~ %.2fs' % bm.total
end

(10..90).step(10).to_a.reverse.each do |i|
  crush("image.jpg", i)
end

And the results.

$ ruby crush.rb
image.jpg 2448x3264 24bit N ICC Exiff XMP JFIF  [OK] 4166906 --> 2615012 bytes (37.24%), optimized.
~ 0.57s
image.jpg 2448x3264 24bit N ICC Exiff XMP JFIF  [OK] 4166906 --> 1609028 bytes (61.39%), optimized.
~ 0.50s
image.jpg 2448x3264 24bit N ICC Exiff XMP JFIF  [OK] 4166906 --> 1280427 bytes (69.27%), optimized.
~ 0.47s
image.jpg 2448x3264 24bit N ICC Exiff XMP JFIF  [OK] 4166906 --> 1062805 bytes (74.49%), optimized.
~ 0.46s
image.jpg 2448x3264 24bit N ICC Exiff XMP JFIF  [OK] 4166906 --> 917364 bytes (77.98%), optimized.
~ 0.45s
image.jpg 2448x3264 24bit N ICC Exiff XMP JFIF  [OK] 4166906 --> 787728 bytes (81.10%), optimized.
~ 0.43s
image.jpg 2448x3264 24bit N ICC Exiff XMP JFIF  [OK] 4166906 --> 645179 bytes (84.52%), optimized.
~ 0.43s
image.jpg 2448x3264 24bit N ICC Exiff XMP JFIF  [OK] 4166906 --> 482212 bytes (88.43%), optimized.
~ 0.43s
image.jpg 2448x3264 24bit N ICC Exiff XMP JFIF  [OK] 4166906 --> 279443 bytes (93.29%), optimized.
~ 0.39s

Aha! It is faster. Much faster.

Stream Duplex

To match the i/o interface of the Go program, I had to redirect the image from stdout to the desired file because the program only allows for a destination directory.

$ jpegoptim --help 2>&1 | grep std
  --stdout          send output to standard output (instead of a file)
  --stdin           read input from standard input (instead of a file)

Very interesting! The program can effectively be an image compression stream duplex. Time to rewrite the crushing code to use streams.

import (
  "os/exec"
  "io"
)

func Crush(filename string, quality int) {
  start := time.Now()

  file, _ := os.Open(filename)
  copyname := fmt.Sprintf("%[email protected]%d.jpg", filename[0:len(filename) - 4], quality)
  copy, _ := os.Create(copyname)
  jpegoptim(file, copy, quality)

  elapsed := time.Since(start).Seconds()
  fmt.Printf("%s: %s ~ %.2fs\n", copyname, stat(file, copy), elapsed)
}

func jpegoptim(reader io.Reader, writer io.Writer, quality int) {
  max := fmt.Sprintf("--max=%d", quality)
  cmd := exec.Command("jpegoptim", "--stdin", "--stdout", max)
  cmd.Stdout = writer
  cmd.Stdin = reader
  cmd.Run()
}

// main, stat, size unchanged

It's about three times faster, and compresses the image about 1% more. An improvement for sure.

[email protected]: 4166906 --> 2615012 (37.24%) ~ 0.55s
[email protected]: 4166906 --> 1609028 (61.39%) ~ 0.50s
[email protected]: 4166906 --> 1280427 (69.27%) ~ 0.46s
[email protected]: 4166906 --> 1062805 (74.49%) ~ 0.44s
[email protected]: 4166906 --> 917364 (77.98%) ~ 0.43s
[email protected]: 4166906 --> 787728 (81.10%) ~ 0.43s
[email protected]: 4166906 --> 645179 (84.52%) ~ 0.42s
[email protected]: 4166906 --> 482212 (88.43%) ~ 0.40s
[email protected]: 4166906 --> 279443 (93.29%) ~ 0.39s

Server Caveat

The http.Request.Body and http.ResponseWriter can be used as a reader and writer respectively. I thought it would be possible to implement a streaming echo compression server, but unfortunately it's not possible to read from the request and write to the response at the same damn time.

The next challenge is to find out if the command can act as a duplex stream to compress a request body and write it to the cloud without ever saving the image to disk. Tweet if you figure it out @aj0strow.