Linked by Brooss on Sat 26th Feb 2011 16:49 UTC
Google Google has released a new set of tools for the WebP Image format. The release includes a completely rewritten encoder with improved image quality. Also available is a Windows Imaging Component providing WebP import to any application that supports WIC such as Microsoft Office 2010. There is a side-by-side comparison between the new encoder, the old encoder and JPEG here.
Order by: Score:
What world needs
by Karitku on Sat 26th Feb 2011 17:21 UTC
Karitku
Member since:
2006-01-12

Isn't yet another web aimed picture format. What we do need is replacement for TIFF. Why? Because TIFF is only picture format that is generally specified in archiving standards. Another format is PDF 1.5 which isn't very good either. I been waiting proper XML-based image format since Microsoft released XPS or atleast something that has proper custom metadata format. Problem is that XPS isn't aimed for long time archive purpose at least Microsoft isn't doing much to push it in archiving standards.

Reply Score: 2

RE: What world needs
by Valhalla on Sat 26th Feb 2011 17:39 UTC in reply to "What world needs"
Valhalla Member since:
2006-01-24

Well, I wouldn't pretend to know 'what the world needs' when it comes to image formats, but I don't think webp will make a splash unless the improvements over Jpeg become dramatic. From my own (now outdated) tests webp is better when using low quality, with higher quality there was very little difference.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: What world needs
by Kochise on Sat 26th Feb 2011 19:45 UTC in reply to "RE: What world needs"
Kochise Member since:
2006-03-03

You know, PNG-MNG-JNG covers almost everything about raster images, and SVG for vector images. The rest, PDF-PSD-whatever is gross and useful only on specific cases (proprietary format)

Kochise

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: What world needs
by TheGZeus on Sun 27th Feb 2011 00:36 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: What world needs"
TheGZeus Member since:
2010-05-19

PostScript is a powerful interpreted programming language, and it's a really good way of producing quality printed material.

It's too bad that people think that it's unreadable because they look at generated code and say "look! it's garbage!" well, you probably couldn't read the intermediate code spat out by most compilers that have concern for neither speed nor readability, but rather accuracy.

Also, PostScript files aren't proprietary. Very easy to open one up in any raseriser (including a capable printer) or even a text editor (but again, generated code isn't easily parsed by humans).

It's too bad that Adobe's PDF reader was free, and their implementations of PS were not. Then again, big companies have always wanted a stranglehold on anything they produce, so they would have used PDF anyway (not that it's at all hard to bypass PDF locks).

*sigh*
Money spoils technology again.

Edited 2011-02-27 00:37 UTC

Reply Score: 0

RE[4]: What world needs
by Lennie on Sun 27th Feb 2011 01:51 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: What world needs"
Lennie Member since:
2007-09-22

I hope you don't mean PDF is a good format ?

It's fileformat is possible more complicated then those from Microsoft Office.

It is not even possible to make a working/valid parser, because the format is to arbitrary:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=54XYqsf4JEY

If you are on Windows and have Acrobat installed and you understood the video. I suggest disabling the acrobat-plugin in your browser if you haven't already.

Edited 2011-02-27 02:04 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: What world needs
by sakeniwefu on Sun 27th Feb 2011 02:36 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: What world needs"
sakeniwefu Member since:
2008-02-26

PDF used to be a decent document format for its time, and Adobe provides free patent licenses for implementations which makes it infinitely superior to PS which is patent-encumbered. Some of the recent additions to it for tagging and accessibility are good.

Problem is people wouldn't pay for Adobe products if they only released the archiving PDF standard. Adding Flash and other crap means that they can have features over other readers and editors.

But make no mistake, if PS was better, that it wasn't, it is massively slower and otherwise unsuitable for document exchange, they would have done the same to it, and PS is a full programming language by itself so it would be even worse.

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: What world needs
by TheGZeus on Sun 27th Feb 2011 06:42 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: What world needs"
TheGZeus Member since:
2010-05-19

Why pay any attention to nonsense software patents that have gone unenforced for _decades_, and are thus unenforceable?
They have a responsibility to defend their IP if they want to retain ownership, and GhostScript has been around for many years. I'm willing to bet it has a larger installed base than Adobe's implementation.

Also, links for any evidence of any of this, and why anyone should care?

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: What world needs
by Rahul on Sun 27th Feb 2011 11:40 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: What world needs"
Rahul Member since:
2005-07-06

"Why pay any attention to nonsense software patents that have gone unenforced for _decades_, and are thus unenforceable? "

Patents just don't work that way. If I am a patent holder, I can wait till even a year before the patent expires to begin enforcing it. There is no requirement to actively protect it unlike say a trademark.

Reply Score: 3

RE[5]: What world needs
by TheGZeus on Sun 27th Feb 2011 06:37 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: What world needs"
TheGZeus Member since:
2010-05-19

Please don't skim my posts then reply to them.

Read them, or don't reply.

Reply Score: 0

Comment by liber
by liber on Sat 26th Feb 2011 18:01 UTC
liber
Member since:
2008-10-26

How do you find the image comparisons? I really want the webp format to be good, but i can't say i am blown away or even all to impressed by the comparisons.

With the same quality setting i find the webp blurrier (still about half or 3/5 of the file size)

When i match the file sizes, i don't know which one i prefer, for example

http://webscaws.x10.mx/webp/RAW_CANON_S5IS.CRW/jpeg/jpeg/RAW_CANON_...

http://webscaws.x10.mx/webp/RAW_CANON_S5IS.CRW/libwebp-0.1/png/RAW_...

In the original you can clearly see that some grasses are "striped" vertically. In the jpeg image i see more artifacts, but i still see more of the stripes in the grasses, while the webp one only shows green-without-detail. ( i also suggest watching example 0 with the clouds)

I suspect it might be a matter of personal preference ("can you try to look... blockier?"), just as some people prefer the artifacts of 128/192kbit mp3 to cd-quality flac.

Edit:

But holy smokes, check out the low qualityies. Webp beats jpeg hands down.

Edited 2011-02-26 18:19 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE: Comment by liber
by Bill Shooter of Bul on Sun 27th Feb 2011 00:00 UTC in reply to "Comment by liber"
Bill Shooter of Bul Member since:
2006-07-14

But holy smokes, check out the low qualityies. Webp beats jpeg hands down.


I believe that is the real point of webp ;)

Reply Score: 4

RE: Comment by liber
by Brooss on Sun 27th Feb 2011 02:41 UTC in reply to "Comment by liber"
Brooss Member since:
2010-11-13

With the same quality setting i find the webp blurrier (still about half or 3/5 of the file size)


I agree but I think you can see some improvement between the older webpconv encoder and the new encoder in terms of sharpness (less blurriness).

The new encoder also provides settings that can be used to specify different filter strengths. All the examples on the websca.ws page are encoded with the default settings.

Reply Score: 1

JPEG XR
by l_tamas on Sun 27th Feb 2011 13:43 UTC
l_tamas
Member since:
2011-02-27

JPEG XR is a far more advanced format and it has the adventages of an open standard. Unfortunately, at this time there are is no open source decoder partially because of the unfavorable license terms of the reference decoder. It would be very nice to see the broader adoption of this standard but it would require a good quality FLOSS encoder and a well designed fast decoding library (like libjpeg).

Reply Score: 3

pff
by baryluk on Sun 27th Feb 2011 14:27 UTC
baryluk
Member since:
2010-01-02

Hmm, looks new webp is pretty good improvement over previous (old) one. It is also sharper and smaller than jpeg. But it looks new version also introduced slightly more block artifacts, but they are still much more smaller than in jpeg.

Any way, i still think webp idea is bad idea. It should be compared first with improved jpeg (bigger DCT blocks, state-of-the-art encoders/decoders for jpeg, which makes really big difference, and include deblocking loop in decoder to remove this artifacts). I also think webp should be compared with wavelet based formats, most importantly PGF, which is fast, supports also alpha channel, progressive download, multiple color spaces and color depths and is free and open. I think if we want new image format it should be PGF, not webp. And will not be for just introducing webp becuase it is better than jpeg. It is better, but we can get MUCH more better, and if we want to go throught the pain of implementing this in all webbrowser, and tools, please wait, think deaply, and introduce just one format, not one, and next year, next one, and next year, next one, because somene forgot to support some obvious futures.

Edited 2011-02-27 14:32 UTC

Reply Score: 2

The visuals tests are good but ...
by fithisux on Sun 27th Feb 2011 22:30 UTC
fithisux
Member since:
2006-01-22

since I have taken the time to work on image distortion by jpeg I would like to see

1. Distortion variance versus pixel intensity
2. Spatial correlation of noise
3. Inter channel correlation
4. Quality versus percentage of original file size

for both webp and jpeg.

Or even better I can start evaluating on my own :-)

Reply Score: 2