Linked by Brooss on Sat 26th Feb 2011 16:49 UTC
Google Google has released a new set of tools for the WebP Image format. The release includes a completely rewritten encoder with improved image quality. Also available is a Windows Imaging Component providing WebP import to any application that supports WIC such as Microsoft Office 2010. There is a side-by-side comparison between the new encoder, the old encoder and JPEG here.
Thread beginning with comment 464138
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Comment by liber
by liber on Sat 26th Feb 2011 18:01 UTC
liber
Member since:
2008-10-26

How do you find the image comparisons? I really want the webp format to be good, but i can't say i am blown away or even all to impressed by the comparisons.

With the same quality setting i find the webp blurrier (still about half or 3/5 of the file size)

When i match the file sizes, i don't know which one i prefer, for example

http://webscaws.x10.mx/webp/RAW_CANON_S5IS.CRW/jpeg/jpeg/RAW_CANON_...

http://webscaws.x10.mx/webp/RAW_CANON_S5IS.CRW/libwebp-0.1/png/RAW_...

In the original you can clearly see that some grasses are "striped" vertically. In the jpeg image i see more artifacts, but i still see more of the stripes in the grasses, while the webp one only shows green-without-detail. ( i also suggest watching example 0 with the clouds)

I suspect it might be a matter of personal preference ("can you try to look... blockier?"), just as some people prefer the artifacts of 128/192kbit mp3 to cd-quality flac.

Edit:

But holy smokes, check out the low qualityies. Webp beats jpeg hands down.

Edited 2011-02-26 18:19 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE: Comment by liber
by Bill Shooter of Bul on Sun 27th Feb 2011 00:00 in reply to "Comment by liber"
Bill Shooter of Bul Member since:
2006-07-14

But holy smokes, check out the low qualityies. Webp beats jpeg hands down.


I believe that is the real point of webp ;)

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE: Comment by liber
by Brooss on Sun 27th Feb 2011 02:41 in reply to "Comment by liber"
Brooss Member since:
2010-11-13

With the same quality setting i find the webp blurrier (still about half or 3/5 of the file size)


I agree but I think you can see some improvement between the older webpconv encoder and the new encoder in terms of sharpness (less blurriness).

The new encoder also provides settings that can be used to specify different filter strengths. All the examples on the websca.ws page are encoded with the default settings.

Reply Parent Score: 1