Linked by Brooss on Sat 26th Feb 2011 16:49 UTC
Permalink for comment 464138
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Features
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 21:38 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/20/13 11:29 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 21:33 UTC
Linked by David Adams on 05/16/13 4:23 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/11/13 21:41 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/08/13 14:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/02/13 15:28 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/29/13 21:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/24/13 22:24 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/18/13 11:21 UTC
More Features »
Sponsored Links



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