Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

WebP 0.6 Coming With Performance Improvements

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • WebP 0.6 Coming With Performance Improvements

    Phoronix: WebP 0.6 Coming With Performance Improvements

    For those interested in Google's WebP lossy/lossless image format that tends to deliver much superior compression vs. quality results to JPEG, a new release is on approach...

    Phoronix, Linux Hardware Reviews, Linux hardware benchmarks, Linux server benchmarks, Linux benchmarking, Desktop Linux, Linux performance, Open Source graphics, Linux How To, Ubuntu benchmarks, Ubuntu hardware, Phoronix Test Suite

  • #2
    From official announcement

    - 1/23/2017: version 0.6.0
    * lossless performance and compression improvements
    * miscellaneous performance improvements (SSE2, NEON, MSA)
    * webpmux gained a -duration option allowing for frame timing modification
    * new img2webp utility allowing a sequence of images to be converted to animated webp
    * API changes:
    - libwebp:
    WebPPictureSharpARGBToYUVA
    WebPPlaneDistortion

    Comment


    • #3
      They've been talking about adding this to Firefox since 2010...

      RESOLVED (shay) in Core - Graphics: ImageLib. Last updated 2017-07-25.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Inopia View Post
        They've been talking about adding this to Firefox since 2010...

        https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=600919
        Um, https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1294490

        It's on the way.

        Comment


        • #5
          i consider WebP the ultimate image format because it supports everything
          - alpha channel / transparency
          - animation
          - both lossless and lossy encoding
          also its fast and has good quality
          Last edited by davidbepo; 25 January 2017, 05:16 AM.

          Comment


          • #6
            Is there any serious comparison where WebP doesnt look equal or worse than a Jpeg of the same size?
            The only positive "comparison" was google`s own where they compared it to random images from the web, ignoring that the settings for Jpeg just weren`t comparable (not adjusted for good quality/size tradeoff) and encoders unspecified.

            Comment


            • #7
              Does WebP have an unfortunate name?
              It seems like a good file format but the name makes it sounds like its use is for the web only, and that kind of limits the desire to use it.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by discordian View Post
                Is there any serious comparison where WebP doesnt look equal or worse than a Jpeg of the same size?
                The only positive "comparison" was google`s own where they compared it to random images from the web, ignoring that the settings for Jpeg just weren`t comparable (not adjusted for good quality/size tradeoff) and encoders unspecified.
                this one:

                another:
                http://www.gaia-gis.it/raster_benchm...g-vs-webp.html

                i found another but it was outdated

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by liam View Post
                  They sure are taking their sweet time with it. So long in fact that WebP got eclipsed by a completely new format BPG (2014).


                  Originally posted by discordian View Post
                  Is there any serious comparison where WebP doesnt look equal or worse than a Jpeg of the same size?.
                  There's one with all the relevant formats:



                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Inopia View Post
                    They sure are taking their sweet time with it. So long in fact that WebP got eclipsed by a completely new format BPG (2014).



                    There's one with all the relevant formats:


                    BPG looks much better, why does no browser support it yet?

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X