3 ms·
Given that most JPEG images are generated by digital cameras, I don't think WebP will get any traction until Canon, Nikon et al support WebP natively. And hope
by jbarham 16y ago
Given that most JPEG images are generated by digital cameras, I don't think WebP will get any traction until Canon, Nikon et al support WebP natively.
And hopefully attaching metadata to WebP images will be saner than it is for JPEGs.
- pjscott 16y agoIt shouldn't be too long before Android phones start supporting WebP natively, and image-hosting sites like Picasa and Flickr already do re-encoding to lower the image size; adding WebP to that shouldn't be a serious problem. I can see this getting traction even without support from most digital cameras. As for metadata, the container format is based on RIFF, which consists of tagged binary chunks. Metadata chunks follow the image data, and consist of null-terminated strings. No word yet on whether or not you can use Unicode. http://code.google.com/speed/webp/docs/riff_container.html http://code.google.com/speed/webp/docs/riff_container.html
- jbarham 16y ago> No word yet on whether or not you can use Unicode. You should be able to use UTF-8 since it doesn't include embedded nulls.
- pjscott 16y agoSure, but I'm worried about the guy who decides that his decoder will use ISO-8859-1 by default, or UTF-16 if that's specified in some meta-metadata chunk somewhere. If this were written down in a spec, we wouldn't have to fret about it.