Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 32

Thread: Google Comes Up With Its Own Image Format: WebP

Hybrid View

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    14,601

    Default Google Comes Up With Its Own Image Format: WebP

    Phoronix: Google Comes Up With Its Own Image Forms: WebP

    After previously open-sourcing the VP8 video codec and coming up with a new container format (WebM), Google set its sights on making a new image format. Google has now publicly announced and released the initial code to the WebP image format. The goal of WebP is to better compress images than PNG and JPEG files commonly used on web-sites while retaining the same image quality...

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=ODY0Mw

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Portugal
    Posts
    525

    Default

    If it's lossy compression, comparing it to PNG doesn't really make sense, since PNG is lossless.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    141

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by [Knuckles] View Post
    If it's lossy compression, comparing it to PNG doesn't really make sense, since PNG is lossless.
    that's what i was thinking..

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    845

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by [Knuckles] View Post
    If it's lossy compression, comparing it to PNG doesn't really make sense, since PNG is lossless.
    Those are PNG's of webp encoded images, it was necessary since no browser yet supports webp and thus you would not be able to see the result.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Linuxland
    Posts
    5,052

    Default

    Oh good luck with that. Change on the web takes eons (thanks IE!).

    Why would this win, when jpeg2000 didn't?

    For their purposes:
    No advantage over PNG (lossy).
    No advantage over GIF (static).
    Apparently no advantage over jp2k (similar compression compared to jpeg).

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    17

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by curaga View Post
    Oh good luck with that. Change on the web takes eons (thanks IE!).

    Why would this win, when jpeg2000 didn't?

    For their purposes:
    No advantage over PNG (lossy).
    No advantage over GIF (static).
    Apparently no advantage over jp2k (similar compression compared to jpeg).
    Because jpg2000 is patent encumbered. And that was why png appeared, because of legal issues with gif. Png is now supported everywhere. But yes it will probably take some years...

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    60

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by karasu View Post
    Because jpg2000 is patent encumbered.
    ...as is WebM. Google never proved that VP8/WebM is not encumbered by patents, but other people proved that VP8/WebM uses the EXACT same Technologies as H.264. And the MPEG LA holds a huge bunch of patents on H.264.

    Quote Originally Posted by NoEffex View Post
    The moment someone suggests any type of change gets shot down.
    If you suggest changes, please prove that they make sense. Googles "proof" is downloading a million COMPRESSED still images from the web, compressing them again with VP8, and then claiming the result was smaller.

    Well, it HAS to be.

    On the other hand the x264 devs delivered som real results (http://x264dev.multimedia.cx/?p=541), and as it seems VP8 can not even beat JPEG at the moment - a 20 year old codec.

    Sure, Google promises to deliver improvements and new features like transparency, but they also promised to improve WebM, and nothing has happened in the last four weeks. I will believe them when I see results.

    A new image container without lossless compression (you know, there ARE people who use it) and animations is just plain stupid anyways. The gain over JPEG and GIF is too small.

    Quote Originally Posted by NoEffex View Post
    This is why Linux is going nowhere.
    This has nothing to do with Linux, nice try.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    2,086

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sturmflut View Post
    other people proved that VP8/WebM uses the EXACT same Technologies as H.264.
    Not exactly, no.
    A lot of what is in h.264 is perfectly free. The vast majority of it, in fact is made up of functions that NOBODY has a claim to.

    If you suggest changes, please prove that they make sense. Googles "proof" is downloading a million COMPRESSED still images from the web, compressing them again with VP8, and then claiming the result was smaller.

    Well, it HAS to be.
    Actually, no again, that is not how compression works.
    The "recompression" actually begins with a DECOMPRESSION. The RAW image, (i.e. AFTER decompression) is then compressed with the new system. The second compression doesn't gain anything from the first one -- they are NOT cumulative. I.e., in some cases, a "zip of a zip" might be smaller than the first zip. This is not the case here, since an image can only be compressed from raw.

    Now here's the funny part of this;
    Source compression can actually have some seriously bad effects that crop up with multiple recompressions -- especially if you change the encoding scheme. You know how a photocopy of a photocopy will degrade in appearance? Well it changes even MORE when you change the encoding scheme.... like taking a PICTURE of a PHOTOCOPY, getting a print, and photocopying it. That would end up REAL ugly.

    If you are starting with a degraded image and want to maintain it as NOT SIGNIFICANTLY WORSE, you need to compress VERY VERY LIGHTLY! Again, if you're changing encoding schemes, the effects become more pronounced, which means BIGGER STILL!!!

    Here's the worst part of it... that x264 page is STARTING with a DEGRADED IMAGE, and subjecting it to three encoding schemes, two of which are the same as the one that initially degraded it!


    And then, of course.... this guy cheated with jpeg by applying jpegcrush! Sorry, but NO -- that is not allowed! You need to compress that jpeg more to get the file size down, not apply cheats to one but not the other! Similar cheats are equally possible for VPX, but this guy isn't offering that advantage. You want fair results? Perform a fair test!

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    766

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by droidhacker View Post
    And then, of course.... this guy cheated with jpeg by applying jpegcrush! Sorry, but NO -- that is not allowed!
    Why not? The ultimate goal was to reduce web traffic by making our pictures smaller.
    If jpegs can be saved more efficiently without reducing picture quality, then that's the way to go. It's easier to build an open source jpeg exporter and get it into popular image editors than it is to get support for a new picture format altogether.

    When comparing formats, you must use the best encoder available for each format. They obviously used the best available for WebP, and if they released results before applying all needed optimizations, they have only themselves to blame.

    Quote Originally Posted by droidhacker View Post
    Here's the worst part of it... that x264 page is STARTING with a DEGRADED IMAGE, and subjecting it to three encoding schemes, two of which are the same as the one that initially degraded it!
    Are you sure their source images isn't lossless? I have trouble spotting any artefacts there. The blog post sounds like it'd be straight from the camera, before exporting to a lossy format.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    77

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sturmflut View Post
    ...as is WebM. Google never proved that VP8/WebM is not encumbered by patents, but other people proved that VP8/WebM uses the EXACT same Technologies as H.264. And the MPEG LA holds a huge bunch of patents on H.264.



    If you suggest changes, please prove that they make sense. Googles "proof" is downloading a million COMPRESSED still images from the web, compressing them again with VP8, and then claiming the result was smaller.

    Well, it HAS to be.

    On the other hand the x264 devs delivered som real results (http://x264dev.multimedia.cx/?p=541), and as it seems VP8 can not even beat JPEG at the moment - a 20 year old codec.

    Sure, Google promises to deliver improvements and new features like transparency, but they also promised to improve WebM, and nothing has happened in the last four weeks. I will believe them when I see results.

    A new image container without lossless compression (you know, there ARE people who use it) and animations is just plain stupid anyways. The gain over JPEG and GIF is too small.



    This has nothing to do with Linux, nice try.
    By Linux I meant open source community.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •