Google Makes WebP in Effort to Make JPEG Extinct

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Status
Not open for further replies.
how long it will take to have this new format supported by the HTML editors and other development platforms?
as well as browsers... not sure if the Apple & Microsoft browsers will support it tomorrow...
but its a good news to see new format and better compression.
 
[citation][nom]stm1185[/nom]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.[/citation]

Go Google until we find that any WebP based image also collects data and send sit to Google to know what to advertise to you......
 
[citation][nom]jimmysmitty[/nom]Go Google until we find that any WebP based image also collects data and send sit to Google to know what to advertise to you......[/citation]

Hey if they can fit that into a 40% smaller file, all props to them.
 
[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]

HAHA Okay, lets consider the advances in internet in the last 15 years to what's to come...

http://www.cedarville.edu/Offices/Computer-Services/Internet-Speed-History.aspx

This chart isn't even up to date, any yet.. say, internet speeds are up 1500%. Who knew.. One can only imagine how speeds will be 15 years from now.
 

Have you seen how fast mobile internet is? Have you seen how small the data caps often are?

Also, did you know that many people still use dialup?
 
[citation][nom]ispam[/nom]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.[/citation]

That .GIF format also had a 216 color limit (remaining bits to 255 are black) + rough-at-best alpha blending. This made adding features like a drop-shadow next to impossible, as GIF was reduced to dithering at that point.

The 32-bit PNG (not the 24-bit PNG) color-corrected the problem of transparent GIFs.


Anyone here remember CompuServe?
 

If they showed you a "true" comparison you'd only see the JPEG. Since PNG is lossless it means the image would look the same as WebP. Check the link in my previous post for comparisons with larger images.
 
Nice hearing news about new technologies, but have in mind that WebP requires significantly power processing (or GPU) power. You must have at least a quad-core PC or a GPU-accelerated codec in order to have the same web-surfing speed/quality as JPEG.

Bottom line, all those P3,P4 PCs that work just fine atm as web-surfing pachines, will suffer hard, if WebP becomes the new standard.

But I guess, that's what evolution is all about..
 
[citation][nom]teodoreh[/nom]Nice hearing news about new technologies, but have in mind that WebP requires significantly power processing (or GPU) power. You must have at least a quad-core PC or a GPU-accelerated codec in order to have the same web-surfing speed/quality as JPEG. Bottom line, all those P3,P4 PCs that work just fine atm as web-surfing pachines, will suffer hard, if WebP becomes the new standard. But I guess, that's what evolution is all about..[/citation]
WTH, your commentary doesn't make any sense??? We're not talking about a video here. We're talking about an image. If there are differences in the time that takes to decode both formats it will be marginal at best. Also I don't know any image format that has a GPU assisted decoding. Also I failt to see why would we need a quad core to decode a single image when a dual core can decode a 1080p webm movie without the assistance of the GPU, and in this scenario the CPU has to decode at least 24 images per second, unlike a single image.
 
[citation][nom]graham_71[/nom]Im all for improvement but can we trust google, every WebP image may be spying on ushttp://www.engadget.com/2010/09/30 [...] tificatio/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 !!![/citation]
If you pay attention, for the first image, it's a 12KB JPG, the second is a 60KB PNG. Google converted it to WebP, and give us a preview in a high quality PNG file (which is 100% the same as the original, just larger).
So, no. Google did it right.
[citation][nom]randomizer[/nom]If you want a real comparison, check out here: http://englishhard.com/2010/10/01/ [...] ersus-jpg/[/citation]
Thank you very much for that link.
 
They look pretty close but I can tell a difference. The colors in the WebP images look a little cleaner and more vibrant, perhaps unnaturally so. If you look at the first Muralizer image you can see what im talking about if you look at the red in the left tower of the mural.
 
I can understand the need to reduce sizes if internet speeds are not increasing and hard drives are static in size.
However...
In the last 6 years I have gone from a 2Mb ADSL to a 24Mb ADSL, from a 250Gb HDD to a 2Tb HDD.
And...
Costs for both have plummeted.
So...
Do we really need this? Sure every little helps but it looks as if it is mainly for Googles benefit to reduce their bandwidth rather than our benefit as consumers.
 
Yay. Another image format. That is what we need. Cue the new revolutionary formats from MS (now with DRM :)), Apple (now with DRM :)) and about fifty offshoots of WebP because it doesn't work the way someone wants it too. The worst part is that browser vendors will have to begin supporting all of these so they have another tick in the features box.
 
[citation][nom]randomizer[/nom]Have you seen how fast mobile internet is? Have you seen how small the data caps often are? Also, did you know that many people still use dialup?[/citation]

I get 300 k/s over my mobile phone. 15 years from now, I'm not sure how this is going to be an issue.
 
[citation][nom]back_by_demand[/nom]I can understand the need to reduce sizes if internet speeds are not increasing and hard drives are static in size.However...In the last 6 years I have gone from a 2Mb ADSL to a 24Mb ADSL, from a 250Gb HDD to a 2Tb HDD.And...Costs for both have plummeted.So...Do we really need this? Sure every little helps but it looks as if it is mainly for Googles benefit to reduce their bandwidth rather than our benefit as consumers.[/citation]
Reducing the size of a file by a few kb won't have much effect on the client side, but it will have on server side. A server must send the images to every single person that visits the website. Reducing images even by a small fraction will have a big impact. There are also many website hosting companies that put limit on the traffic of every page hosted. If this traffic limit is reach usually the site is taken down and the owner must pay additional fees for the website to resume. Again a few kb on a single image can represent gb of traffic for an entire website.
 
[citation][nom]Vladislaus[/nom]Reducing the size of a file by a few kb won't have much effect on the client side, but it will have on server side. A server must send the images to every single person that visits the website. Reducing images even by a small fraction will have a big impact. There are also many website hosting companies that put limit on the traffic of every page hosted. If this traffic limit is reach usually the site is taken down and the owner must pay additional fees for the website to resume. Again a few kb on a single image can represent gb of traffic for an entire website.[/citation]
Yeah, at the risk of repeating myself, seems as if this adds weight to it being less for the end user benefit.
 
what ever happened to all the wavelet compression products that was to replace JPG and I thought there was also some sort of fractal thing a couple of years back?
 
[citation][nom]marraco[/nom]The "Sample comparison images" are in PNG format instead of WebP[/citation]
That is because there isn't a browser out there that is capable of rendering WebP. So they were converted to PNG so that people can see it on their browser. Since PNG is lossless the result is exactly the same apart from the file size.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom