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 443349
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: What? No love for JPEG2000?
by Valhalla on Fri 1st Oct 2010 02:08 UTC in reply to "What? No love for JPEG2000?"
Valhalla
Member since:
2006-01-24

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:
2008-10-30

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

bnolsen Member since:
2006-01-06

Possibly quite correct. The DCT is a pretty damn good image transform. The problem with it is computational cost and the ijg libraries frankly suck.

For something like WebP to get any traction is if it's even simpler and easier to implement and computationally more efficient. Right now the google pages about webp seem to be out of commission so I can't look into this part myself.

Reply Parent Score: 2

Valhalla Member since:
2006-01-24


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

Well, unless you have decided that this particular random guy on the interwebs are ABSOLUTELY CORRECT in his assessment despite only offering his own subjective perception then that comment really decided nothing. I'm looking forward to a real test by some experts, preferably using non-lossy compressed media to begin with. But even if webp turns out to be alot more efficient than jpg in terms of size/quality I think it's going to be really hard to make a dent in jpg's dominance on the web. Heck, even gif files are still in heavy use despite png being a superior format and even at it's heyday gif was nowhere near jpg in terms of widespread usage (I am old enough to remember having fuzzy dithered gif porn images in my youth, kids today don't know what we oldtimers had to suffer through ;) ).

Reply Parent Score: 3

Almafeta Member since:
2007-02-22

JPEG is a pretty awesome format, all told. It's just that it's not used appropriately in 95% of all cases, and many of the programs that use it don't expose all the features of the format.

Reply Parent Score: 1

Laurence Member since:
2007-03-26

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... "

The problem with that post is that a JPEG set to highest compression does look very crappy. I don't care what this internet anom stated, it's very noticable.

So yes, you can compress JPEG to ~80%, but there's a massive trade off in image quality. Much like MP3 compression really and such is life with any lossy compression formula.

Reply Parent Score: 3