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 443334
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Comment by mercury
by umccullough on Fri 1st Oct 2010 00:17 UTC 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[3]: Comment by mercury
by FunkyELF on Fri 1st Oct 2010 14:32 in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by mercury"
FunkyELF Member since:
2006-07-26

There would be zero improvement.
The JPG was the source.

What they need to do is shoot RAW and export to TIFF or PNG. From the TIFF/PNG convert to both JPG and this new format.

That would be a comparison.

What they're showing here is that you can compress already compressed files at a loss (although seemingly small).

Reply Parent Score: 3

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[3]: Comment by mercury
by umccullough on Fri 1st Oct 2010 20:49 in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by mercury"
umccullough Member since:
2006-01-26

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).


Well, yeah - it wasn't visible enough to make a difference to me. Furthermore, if I saw them side by side, they would be identical. But when you're swapping back and forth between the two images in the exact same window you start to see very minor pixel-level differences. Nothing I would consider a "deal breaker" though. Mainly I was pointing out that the scaled down thumbnail versions did indeed display more differences than I saw when I viewed the full size images - and indicated that I believe the browser scaling for different image formats may be different.

The worst part is that the JPG was used as the source for the WebP - that was a poor choice for producing comparison images on.

Edited 2010-10-01 20:50 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2