Google Makes WebP in Effort to Make JPEG Extinct

[Marcus Yam]

Google claims that it has made a better JPEG.

Google Makes WebP in Effort to Make JPEG Extinct : Read more

 

[killerclick]

Awesome, looking forward to 2025 when this will actually become a standard

 

[jamesedgeuk2000]

wasn't *.PNG the new web image format that was supposed to kill off JPEG? like 8 years ago lol

 

[Ragnar-Kon]

[citation][nom]jamesedgeuk2000[/nom]wasn't *.PNG the new web image format that was supposed to kill off JPEG? like 8 years ago lol[/citation]
PNG was designed to replace GIF images, not JPEG. And for the most part I think it has succeeded, although it is hard to tell.

Well I'm all for a new/better standard. But Google has quite the fight ahead of them if they even want to become standard.
But then again, I'd never thought HTML5 would replace Flash when they first announced it, but now its looking like HTML5 has enough momentum to prove my former self wrong in the next 5 years or so.

 

[ispam]

[citation][nom]jamesedgeuk2000[/nom]wasn't *.PNG the new web image format that was supposed to kill off JPEG? like 8 years ago lol[/citation]
Since you obviously have no idea what are you talking about, here are some facts:
- PNG was created to replace GIF.
- PNG is not 8 years old, first release was in 1996.
- PNG is a LOSSLESS format.

 

[burnley14]

I had a hard time telling the difference in the comparison shots, and ~30% less bandwith is pretty huge. Go Google and their constant innovation!

 

[K2N hater]

Get rid of the adverts and bloated flash crap and pages will load 1000% faster.

 

[IzzyCraft]

Good luck getting the billion or so products that would need updates to support this format.
[citation][nom]killerclick[/nom]Awesome, looking forward to 2025 when this will actually become a standard[/citation]
Haha if we are lucky full support across the board will arrive by then. Then maybe by 2030 websites will feel good enough to start using that format.

 

[Vilepickle]

I think it'll be after 2025 when this standard takes effect...

 

[gmarsack]

[citation][nom]killerclick[/nom]Awesome, looking forward to 2025 when this will actually become a standard[/citation]
Yeah, seriously. lol By then, no one will care since everyone will have internet connections that are 10 times as fast. Not only do developers have to support the new standard, so also would web browsers. It would take 15 years alone for everyone (stupid IE6 users!) to finally download and install a browser that could decode the image.

 

[mauller07]

The problem here is that they applied a lossy codec to an image that was already converted into a lossy codec not including the png images.

 

[Nesto1000]

Get rid of the adverts and bloated flash crap and pages will load 1000% faster.

It's called Adblock plus... use it...

As for googles images, I'm all down for it. another image type won't hurt...

 

[eklipz330]

i don't think this will revolutionize the way we surf the web, but all improvements are welcome

 

[Graham_71]

Im all for improvement but can we trust google, every WebP image may be spying on us
http://www.engadget.com/2010/09/30/study-select-android-apps-sharing-data-without-user-notificatio/
as for the comparison samples, how can anyone tell the difference at a postage stamp size + current browses are not able to view WebP images so they must all be jpg's, its like seeing how a 3D tv looks through a normal tv !!!

 

[ohseus]

Given that it's google there is likely some clause in license that gives them control over the image contents to better sell search results.

 

[hunter315]

I hope it supports good transparency otherwise its not going to manage to replace most web images, if it does it will be very handy to use.

 

[drwho1]

Sorry Google thanks.... but NO thanks

I take pictures on both JPG and RAW (and yea RAW files are huge) but the image quality is way better than JPG.

This is like saying that a .KAR is the same quality than a .MWAV they are not.

Another example is trying to compare a 480i signal to 1080P sure a 480i file will be smaller but nowhere as good.

 

[onyx_64]

Of all those sample images, I was only able to spot a small difference in one of those images. I'm liking this already!

 

[Guest]

Whatever happened to JPEG2000? We don't need another format, we just need people to use the ones already out there. But it's always hard to supplant the first to cross the line. MP3 is hardly the best codec out there for music anymore, but it's about the only format guaranteed to work everywhere. Without browsers other than Chrome supporting WebP, it too will go by the wayside.

 

[steelbox]

[citation][nom]gmarsack[/nom]Yeah, seriously. lol By then, no one will care since everyone will have internet connections that are 10 times as fast. Not only do developers have to support the new standard, so also would web browsers. It would take 15 years alone for everyone (stupid IE6 users!) to finally download and install a browser that could decode the image.[/citation]

[rant]You think the world resolves around you and that every one has the same internet speed as you. Stop and think for once. The internet is not just for you and the image formats are not deisgn just for those that are fortunate enought to have cheap 5+ mb internet speed. Open your eyes to the rest of the world who have an basic internte. For, this advances are a bless[/rant]

 

[ta152h]

It's one thing to be smaller, but since it's a lossy technology, is the quality worse than JPEGs. Nothing in this article said it's the same quality, and smaller, just that it's smaller. Smaller and lower quality is easy.

 

[mianmian]

There were image formates better than JPEG already, such as JPEG2000. It's not easy to make people to changes though.

 

[alextheblue]

[citation][nom]ta152h[/nom]It's one thing to be smaller, but since it's a lossy technology, is the quality worse than JPEGs. Nothing in this article said it's the same quality, and smaller, just that it's smaller. Smaller and lower quality is easy.[/citation]JPEG is a lossy format too - and its not as good. If you're encoding them both from the same source: WebP can look as good at a smaller size, or look better at the same size, or even both to some extent (small boost in quality AND size) depending on how they're compressed.
[citation][nom]jbowman90[/nom]Whatever happened to JPEG2000? We don't need another format, we just need people to use the ones already out there.[/citation][citation][nom]mianmian[/nom]There were image formates better than JPEG already, such as JPEG2000.[/citation]Yeah, people criticize MS for doing this sort of thing but Google is just as bad. They'll gladly ignore existing formats and design and market a new format that they control. I would have been happy to see major companies like Google embrace JPEG2000 instead. Maybe even extend it (JPEG2010?) and make it backwards compatible with JPEG2000.

 

[rbarone69]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JPEG_2000

See the legal issues at the bottom for JPEG 2000. It's a great system but I wonder if the grey area caused concern for Google?

 

[Guest]

I can make out the AY on the rail station sign much better with the WebP compression; and it is almost 40% smaller. Win Win. Go Google.