Google has announced a new picture format that has better quality and smaller sizes than jpeg. I've never been a fan of jpeg but i'm not sure what to think of this new format.
WebP (aka Weppy) - JPEG killer?
(11 posts) (7 voices)-
Posted 2 years ago #
-
I think it was bound to happen. Like everything else, things evolve. How old is Jpeg? I know my crappy work computer can still only read .bmp haha. It's so sad. But that's government, light years behind everything else.
Maybe this weppy will help push for new technology at work. It sucks enough that another organizations sends me information or what have you in .docx and I have to ask for another copy in .doc. Buh.
Haha I'll leave my work off the boards. To keep on topic, I'm excited to see how it will be smaller in size and better in quality, no complaints there from me. I'll still be shooting RAW though.
Posted 2 years ago # -
Interesting. Probably take years for it to catch on, if it ever does; I think it'd depend on a couple of big players in software adopting it (read: Adobe and that ilk), not to mention camera makers having it as one of the native options for their cameras.
Posted 2 years ago # -
Interesting that to show you what the files look like, you download a zip file that has sets of jpg and png files. The WebP file is in a png container they say, so that you can see it with existing file browsers. Hmmmm the png file was about 5 times larger than the original jpg file.
Posted 2 years ago # -
Workodactyl said:
How old is Jpeg?Just turned 18
Ron said:
The WebP file is in a png container they say, so that you can see it with existing file browsers. Hmmmm the png file was about 5 times larger than the original jpg file.That is because the article terminology is a bit misleading. It isn't in a png container at all, not using the common codec-encapusulation definition of "container". Rather it is a lossless png created from the webp source.
That said, some x264 devs have published a quite scathing and informative dismissal of webp.
I tend to doubt it will catch on. Vorbis hasn't dethroned MP3* despite technological, idealistic, and legal superiority because MP3 had the mind share and is good enough,
Switching takes effort and a measurable amount of risk. The usurper needs to not just be measurably superior (and the jury is clearly out on webp) but compelling enough to break the leader's momentum.
*ok, vorbis has completely displaced MP3 as the go-to codec for commercial distribution of lossy sound resources for many game companies. Outside that it never made a dent.
Posted 2 years ago # -
It may have a place but it is not going to replace jpeg. It appears to use an algorithm like gif so it will probably be better used for 8-bit/256 color images like banners etc.
Posted 2 years ago # -
For indexed color, I don't know why you'd choose gif over png.
Posted 2 years ago # -
TaoTeJared said:
It may have a place but it is not going to replace jpeg. It appears to use an algorithm like gif so it will probably be better used for 8-bit/256 color images like banners etc.What do you find similar with GIF?
All pixel chroma values in a GIF image are referenced to a fixed palate, WebP uses 4:2:2 sampling. (Like JPG and many video codecs.)
Pixels in GIF have values (mostly) independent of their neighbors, WebP and JPG (again, like many lossy video codecs) macro-block groups of pixels into dependencies.
GIF uses LZW compression, a dictionary-style compression where common strings are stored in a lookup table.
WebP and JPG both use a predictive compressor where you predict what the next block's value will be, and then store the (smaller) delta values, then compress that.Posted 2 years ago # -
You're thinking way too much about nuts and bolts and missing the end result my friend.
It has a similar result, a flat looking image. It looks better than Gif but for a 30-40% better compression it is not worth it. Jpeg2000 plus many others have achieved a similar results but have not be widely adopted.
I'll never understand why companies keep trying to repackage salt and call it sugar.
Posted 2 years ago # -
TaoTeJared said:
You're thinking way too much about nuts and bolts and missing the end result my friend.It has a similar result, a flat looking image.
That may very well be what you mean, but how one is supposed to infer that from the statement on underlying algorithms...
TaoTeJared said:
It may have a place but it is not going to replace jpeg. It appears to use an algorithm like gif so it will probably be better used for 8-bit/256 color images like banners etc....I don't know.
Posted 2 years ago # -
jpeg2000 isn't free, though, so it's not really surprising that it hasn't been widely adopted, is it? I'm not saying I know webp will take over, but it has a better chance than jpeg2000 did if it can give similar results at high compression simply because developers can include support for it without worrying about license fees or an IP lawsuit.
Posted 2 years ago #
Reply
You must log in to post.
