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 443342
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
What? No love for JPEG2000?
by tyrione on Fri 1st Oct 2010 01:43 UTC
Member since:

How come Google isn't comparing it against JP2?

Reply Score: 2

Valhalla Member since:

How come Google isn't comparing it against JP2?

Because this format is aimed at the web and thus 'compete' against standard jpg. Do you see many jpeg2000 images on the web? No, because they are computionally very expensive for what is roughly 20% better compression. Personally I think it's great for archiving high resolution images, not so much for web surfing.

Reply Parent Score: 5

Slambert666 Member since:

Quoting one of the commentators on the site:

The examples page is lame... you can take the same jpeg images and save them with a higher compression level and get effectively the same reduction in file size.

For example I took "10.jpg", a 1.1 meg file, adjusted the jpeg compression and got it down to 189k with no visible loss of quality. That's an over 80% reduction in file size and I didn't have to change the file format.

The Web doesn't need a new file format, especially one that doesn't really do anything substantively different. WebP is no different than JPEG with a higher compression setting as the default.

So WebP does not even fare well against standard jpeg...

Reply Parent Score: 6

RE: What? No love for JPEG2000?
by MechR on Fri 1st Oct 2010 05:49 in reply to "What? No love for JPEG2000?"
MechR Member since:

How come Google isn't comparing it against JP2?

They did; see here:

Reply Parent Score: 2

pabloski Member since:

Jpeg 2000? You mean the zombie? ;)

Seriously, someone here is using jpeg2000?

Reply Parent Score: 1

WereCatf Member since:

Jpeg 2000? You mean the zombie? ;)

Seriously, someone here is using jpeg2000?

Seriously, did you have some point with your comment? Why shouldn't someone use JPEG-2000? It is computationally more expensive, yes, but it also produces slightly less artifacting and smaller files than regular JPEG. If you are going to use a lossy format for archiving purposes you may as well go for JPEG-2000.

Reply Parent Score: 3

troy.unrau Member since:

I do, but I use it in lossless compression mode. In planetary science, it's a particularly useful format as it allows you to view segments very large images at different zoom levels simply by evaluating different chunks of the image file. This is a huge advantage of using the DWT, especially when the image sizes grow to be overly large.

eg: HiRISE images ( ) come in at about 2.5 Gigapixels; jpeg2000 is perfect for viewing pieces of the image at different zoom levels.

That said, implementing jpeg2000 for web photos would be silly, as the web is currently designed. Pretty much all images on the web are viewed at 100% zoom; should that change, jpeg2000 would be useful. As it is, other algorithms are faster than the DWT used.

Reply Parent Score: 2