Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 30th Sep 2010 23:04 UTC
Google A few months ago, Google open sourced the VP8 video codec as part of the WebM video project, to create a truly Free/free unencumbered video format for the web as an answer to the non-Free/free patent-encumbered H264 format. Today, Google launched a new image format for the web, WebP, which aims to significantly reduce the file size of photos and images on the web.
Thread beginning with comment 443333
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Comment by mercury
by mercury on Fri 1st Oct 2010 00:02 UTC
mercury
Member since:
2009-01-24

Most are pretty similar but there are a few exceptions that are less then subtle.

The photo of the NFL player (image 2) looks more saturated with the background changing from blue to aqua and the skin tone redder.

Image 7 goes from magenta to blue especially around the shoreline and piers.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Comment by mercury
by umccullough on Fri 1st Oct 2010 00:17 in reply to "Comment by mercury"
umccullough Member since:
2006-01-26

The photo of the NFL player (image 2) looks more saturated with the background changing from blue to aqua and the skin tone redder.


I saw that in the thumbnails also - but when i opened both pictures and made sure my browser wasn't scaling them to the window size - then flipped back and forth between them - it wasn't as obvious. Therefore, I'm suspecting the scaling mechanisms between JPG and PNG are causing the differences in the thumbnails.

I did notice the words NFL on the mic have a slightly different set of artifacts, and the detail on his head seems sharper in the JPG. It's kinda hard to make an objective comparison anyway when the source picture was already lossy.

Image 7 goes from magenta to blue especially around the shoreline and piers.


Huh? Image 6? Again, it looks a lot different when my browser scales the images than they do unscaled at full resolution.

Edited 2010-10-01 00:17 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[2]: Comment by mercury
by flanque on Fri 1st Oct 2010 11:49 in reply to "RE: Comment by mercury"
flanque Member since:
2005-12-15

I tend to think there's an improvement in some of these images, but your point makes me wonder.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment by mercury
by Timmmm on Fri 1st Oct 2010 13:23 in reply to "RE: Comment by mercury"
Timmmm Member since:
2006-07-25

By "Wasn't as obvious" you mean "wasn't there"? I think you guys are succumbing to the audiophile effect ("yeah, it definitely has more clarity and depth").

If I flick between them there is zero visible difference. I checked in matlab and the difference is really really really small (actually over half the pixels are identical).

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE: Comment by mercury
by tyrione on Fri 1st Oct 2010 01:45 in reply to "Comment by mercury"
tyrione Member since:
2005-11-21

You're right. You can see the averaging trying to blend where instead of a random scatter pattern via the JPEG you now see groupings of non-linear shapes to cut down on the file size.

The same with his forehead.

Reply Parent Score: 2