Well, at this point we should be unsurprised that it sucks balls :
log rmse :
One note : the rightmost data point from hipix is their "perfect" setting, which is very far from perfect. It's only a little over 2 bpp and the quality is shit. I feel bad for any sucker customers who are saving images as hipix "perfect" and thinking they are getting good quality.
I started to think , man maybe my ms-ssim-scielab is just way off the mark? How can everyone be so bad? Any time your test is telling you things that are hard to believe, you need to reevaluate your test. So I went and looked at the images with my own eyes.
Yep, hipix is awful. JPEG just blows it away.
A sample from the hipix image closest to the 0 on the x axis , and a JPEG of the same size : (HiPix is 230244 bytes, JPEG is 230794 bytes)
Note the complete destruction of the wood grain detail in the hipix, as well as introduction of blockiness and weird smudge shapes. Note the destruction of detail in the plate rim, and the ruining of the straight line edge of the black bowl.
BTW when you are evaluating perceptual quality, you should *NOT* zoom in! JPEG is optimized for human visual system artifact perceptibility at the given scale of the image. JPEG intentionally allows nasty artifacts that look bad when you zoom in, but not when you look at the image in its normal size.
Conclusion : Hipix needs to immediately release a "new and improved HiPix v2.0 that's way better than the last!" by just replacing it with JPEG.
Since they don't offer a command line app I won't be testing this on any more images.
ADDENDUM : Well I ran two points on Moses :
The two points are "High" and "Perfect" and perfect is way not perfect.