4 ms·

What about all the "video preview" images? Surely porn sites would benefit from serving less bytes there.

by nlogn 16y ago

mhd 16y ago
I don't think those are important enough to risk browser compatibility issues, I don't see a reason why the porn industry would throw its weight in the ring because of this. And that's if this new format would actually have advantages at these sizes. The factor doesn't need to remain constant in different resolutions. (And even if, we're talking about small pictures anyway, so if you save 1kb per preview pic, would this matter compared to the video stream bandwidth?)
- pjscott 16y ago
  There are no browser compatibility issues if you use conservative HTTP content negotiation. Browsers which support WebP can say so in their HTTP Accept headers, and the server can serve WebP to those browsers, falling back on ordinary JPEG for older browsers. This was also used back when PNG support was spotty, by sites which wanted to combine the goodness of PNG with the ubiquity of GIF. It's actually pretty simple: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Content_negotiation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Content_negotiation Now that I think about it, there's probably a business opportunity for someone who handles such hosting issues for image-heavy web sites. The porn industry may seem sketchy, but they have a lot of money and a pressing need to keep overhead down.
  - mhd 16y ago
    Yes, but it has to have some significant effect. For this to happen, the gain from the format conversion has to matter for the porn sites use case, this has to be a certain percentage of bandwidth (wonder how that's for video sites), and then the amount of browser who support it (not just advertise it, cf. IE and its PNG "support") has to be high enough. Anybody got some statistics on browser distribution on a major *tube site? I guess we'll see a lot of Internet Explorer there, although it Chrome's "incognito" mode may have found some fans.
    - pjscott 16y ago
      The cost of format conversion can be made very low by having it done automatically by the web server. It'll just take some time for the software to do that.

What about all the "video preview" images? Surely porn sites would benefit from serving less bytes there.

by nlogn 16y ago

What about all the "video preview" images? Surely porn sites would benefit from serving less bytes there.

mhd 16y ago

I don't think those are important enough to risk browser compatibility issues, I don't see a reason why the porn industry would throw its weight in the ring because of this. And that's if this new format would actually have advantages at these sizes. The factor doesn't need to remain constant in different resolutions. (And even if, we're talking about small pictures anyway, so if you save 1kb per preview pic, would this matter compared to the video stream bandwidth?)

pjscott 16y ago
There are no browser compatibility issues if you use conservative HTTP content negotiation. Browsers which support WebP can say so in their HTTP Accept headers, and the server can serve WebP to those browsers, falling back on ordinary JPEG for older browsers. This was also used back when PNG support was spotty, by sites which wanted to combine the goodness of PNG with the ubiquity of GIF. It's actually pretty simple: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Content_negotiation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Content_negotiation Now that I think about it, there's probably a business opportunity for someone who handles such hosting issues for image-heavy web sites. The porn industry may seem sketchy, but they have a lot of money and a pressing need to keep overhead down.
- mhd 16y ago
  Yes, but it has to have some significant effect. For this to happen, the gain from the format conversion has to matter for the porn sites use case, this has to be a certain percentage of bandwidth (wonder how that's for video sites), and then the amount of browser who support it (not just advertise it, cf. IE and its PNG "support") has to be high enough. Anybody got some statistics on browser distribution on a major *tube site? I guess we'll see a lot of Internet Explorer there, although it Chrome's "incognito" mode may have found some fans.
  - pjscott 16y ago
    The cost of format conversion can be made very low by having it done automatically by the web server. It'll just take some time for the software to do that.