Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 30th Sep 2010 23:04 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 443507
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: You guys should read the actual article before
by Neolander on Sat 2nd Oct 2010 08:08
in reply to "RE[2]: You guys should read the actual article before"
Indeed, looks like it's the same thing as with independent H.264 vs VP8 comparisons : JPG has a hideous blocky rendering but keeps more details, while WebP makes more nice-looking images at the cost of some blurring.
I prefer blur myself. In my opinion, being aesthetically-pleasing as a whole is much more important for a picture that some detail in the wild disappearing. Moreover, JPEG/H264 blocks are very annoying when doing image editing (they make tools based on contour detection fail miserably). And after all, those who really want details will only be satisfied with lossless formats anyway
Edited 2010-10-02 08:09 UTC




Member since:
2008-02-26
This guy does a better job. He fucked the JPEGs up at first, but if he has got it right this time then it would match Google's graph and WebP would indeed look better for similarly sized files.
http://englishhard.com/2010/10/01/real-world-analysis-of-googles-we...