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 443388
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Comment by hornett
by hornett on Fri 1st Oct 2010 08:43 UTC
hornett
Member since:
2005-09-19

Not sure why there is so much moaning about this.

Take a look at the final pic, less artefacts (look around the nose on the boat) and it is 66% smaller! Amazing!

Moaning about this is like moaning that h.264 is better than DIVX.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Comment by hornett
by Kroc on Fri 1st Oct 2010 08:48 in reply to "Comment by hornett"
Kroc Member since:
2005-11-10

Might want to read this: http://x264dev.multimedia.cx/?p=541

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[2]: Comment by hornett
by Neolander on Fri 1st Oct 2010 10:17 in reply to "RE: Comment by hornett"
Neolander Member since:
2010-03-08

You know, I'd tend to trust devs working on H.264 technology talking about their competitors just as much as Xiph devs talking about H.264.

Just sayin'...

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[2]: Comment by hornett
by hornett on Fri 1st Oct 2010 13:50 in reply to "RE: Comment by hornett"
hornett Member since:
2005-09-19

Quite a damning review!

I take my comments back for the time being (although I suppose there is is nothing to say that the compressor cannot be tuned/have more psy optimisation added in order to give better detail).

Edited 2010-10-01 13:53 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE: Comment by hornett
by chrisfriberg on Fri 1st Oct 2010 13:42 in reply to "Comment by hornett"
chrisfriberg Member since:
2009-04-08

Funny you mention that. How is it possible that source image has more compression artifacts than their WEBP version? I noticed this on image 5. Control-+ until the images are enlarged and look on the left at the yellow bricks. On the JPEG version you can't make out the individual bricks, but on the WEBP version you can. I noticed this on most images here. Most JPEG edge artifacts are gone on their WEBP counterparts. Even if the originals are just scaled down, you should still always see less detail on recompressed images.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[2]: Comment by hornett
by Glynser on Fri 1st Oct 2010 15:15 in reply to "RE: Comment by hornett"
Glynser Member since:
2007-11-29

I guess they didn't use the JPEG on the left hand side to create the WebP on the right, I guess they just used the same source picture to create both.

EDIT: Apart from being a logical explanation, this would also be the thing that makes the most sense, as they want to compare both codecs with each other.

Edited 2010-10-01 15:17 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 1