4 ms·

This is not as surprising as it sounds to a web developer. For high quality photography purposes jpeg is bordering on useless, even more so if one isn't using M

This is not as surprising as it sounds to a web developer. For high quality photography purposes jpeg is bordering on useless, even more so if one isn't using Mozjpeg or guetzli to get images with reduced artifacts. Even for the most basic uses like sharing a photo with friends and family this can be a problem. For example I sent out an album of travel photos and a family member bought me a poster size print of one of them for Christmas ... using the 3200x2400 jpeg photo I had posted to Google Photos. So while if you're a web designer using stuff like big hero or background images jpeg makes sense, there are a lot of ways in which it simply doesn't cut it for most of us. Fortunately, and _I can't emphasize this enough_, we're now in a situation where the major browsers support Webp or can have fast decoding support easily added. Webp is based on the I-frame encoder of VP8, and for lossy encoding represents a several-generations improvement over Jpeg. And it's here today. Sure, we'll all be using Avif in a HEIF container one of these days, but that isn't relevant to people building systems today. Use WebP! For everything! Check out some comparisons between WebP and MozJPEG here: https://xooyoozoo.github.io/yolo-octo-bugfixes/#buenos-aires&jpg=s&webp=s https://xooyoozoo.github.io/yolo-octo-bugfixes/#buenos-aires... I now upload WebP and HEIC images to Google Photos, where they are both supported.

dageshi 8y ago
I don't think Safari supports webp, on either desktop or iphone? Until it does people will probably still be shipping jpg/png as standard.
extra88 8y ago
IE and Safari do not support WebP, Edge didn't until Windows 10 1809 (November), Firefox didn't until 65 (January) and Firefox ESR and for Android still don't. https://caniuse.com/#feat=webp https://caniuse.com/#feat=webp
- bscphil 8y ago
  Firefox for Android does, that's outdated (see the version number). There's a fast wasm version for Safari: https://github.com/webmproject/libwebp-demo/tree/gh-pages/webp_wasm https://github.com/webmproject/libwebp-demo/tree/gh-pages/we... In addition, all modern browsers support the <picture> element, which allows them to automatically download image the best meets their needs.
  - extra88 8y ago
    Polyfilling WebP support just for browsers that support Web Assembly but not WebP seems pretty weighty when it's very straightforward to not exclusively use WebP. The <picture> element is great but using it means not, as you wrote, "Use WebP! For everything!" Maybe you meant "Use WebP! For everything! With Fallbacks!"
    - bscphil 8y ago
      > "Use WebP! For everything! With Fallbacks!" I can get behind that. :-) What I meant by "for everything" was to use it for both photographic images and illustrations instead of using two different formats.
vladdanilov 8y ago
> For high quality photography purposes jpeg is bordering on useless > Use WebP! For everything! Jyrki Alakuijala, one of the creators of WebP, on WebP vs JPEG [1]: >> For high quality photography, I (and butteraugli) believe that JPEG is actually better than WebP. >> Below JPEG quality 77 WebP lossy wins, above JPEG quality 77 JPEG wins (for photography). >> This was based on the maximum compression artefact in an image -- averaging from 1000 images. Better meaning here [2]: >> Faster decode (up to around 6x faster) and less bytes needed at high quality (in comparison to butteraugli scores). [1] https://encode.ru/threads/2905-Diverse-third-party-ecosystem-for-optimization-of-webp-and-JPEG-XR-images?p=55785&viewfull=1#post55785 https://encode.ru/threads/2905-Diverse-third-party-ecosystem... [2] https://encode.ru/threads/2905-Diverse-third-party-ecosystem-for-optimization-of-webp-and-JPEG-XR-images?p=55757&viewfull=1#post55757 https://encode.ru/threads/2905-Diverse-third-party-ecosystem...
- bscphil 8y ago
  "For high quality photography, I (and butteraugli) believe that JPEG is actually better than WebP." That's interesting. Of course, the subjective part of that is one person's take, and the "objective" part of it is pointless because the whole point of Guetzli (the jpeg encoder) is to try to maximize the Butteraugli score, so saying that WebP gets a lower score is not significant. Personally, WebP looks a lot better to me in the direct tests of equal file size that I've seen. It even looks better than Pik, which is Google's experimental successor to Jpeg that also uses Butteraugli. And it would be odd, to say the least, if a codec from the early nineties could beat a modern one on Intra-frame coding, which has been a subject of immense research over the years. Take a look at some of these for yourself. https://wyohknott.github.io/image-formats-comparison/ https://wyohknott.github.io/image-formats-comparison/
  - lstamour 8y ago
    Like MP3 encoders, JPEG encoders have only gotten better over the years, perhaps they’ve fewer bugs or compromises for compression? Also, there are newer standards for JPEG including JPEG2000 and JPEG XR, etc. Plus many other alternatives: https://developers.google.com/web/fundamentals/performance/optimizing-content-efficiency/automating-image-optimization/#how-far-have-we-come-from-the-jpeg https://developers.google.com/web/fundamentals/performance/o... So my advice is encode in multiple formats to achieve the broadest browser support and the best image quality/size trade off that you’re willing to allow. That said... it does sort of bug me that every couple years we have to revisit which codecs we’re using because the implementations keep marching on...
matt4077 8y ago
> For high quality photography purposes jpeg is bordering on useless That's the sort of faux-professional hyper-contrarianism that is "bordering on detrimental". I just checked Magnum, a somewhat professional photo agency. They use JPEG. So do the NYT, flickr, and probably the vast majority of professional and totally unprofessional websites. It seems there is some use left in the format. Not being able to print to billboard sizes doesn't diminish this. Because (a) that use case is a rounding error, and (b) WebP is still not safe for such purposes – TIFF is.
- hexo 8y ago
  TIFF is just a container. Doesnt say about encoding or compression (like AVI). That you find web using hardcore old style JPEGs when they've been replaced by better formats long ago also doesn't mean that JPEG is really suitable way to store or share photos - especially when your display is good hi-dpi stuff. Also - do you find GIFs technologically OK for sharing animations today when there is stuff like h.265...?

dageshi 8y ago

I don't think Safari supports webp, on either desktop or iphone? Until it does people will probably still be shipping jpg/png as standard.

extra88 8y ago

IE and Safari do not support WebP, Edge didn't until Windows 10 1809 (November), Firefox didn't until 65 (January) and Firefox ESR and for Android still don't. https://caniuse.com/#feat=webp https://caniuse.com/#feat=webp

bscphil 8y ago
Firefox for Android does, that's outdated (see the version number). There's a fast wasm version for Safari: https://github.com/webmproject/libwebp-demo/tree/gh-pages/webp_wasm https://github.com/webmproject/libwebp-demo/tree/gh-pages/we... In addition, all modern browsers support the <picture> element, which allows them to automatically download image the best meets their needs.
- extra88 8y ago
  Polyfilling WebP support just for browsers that support Web Assembly but not WebP seems pretty weighty when it's very straightforward to not exclusively use WebP. The <picture> element is great but using it means not, as you wrote, "Use WebP! For everything!" Maybe you meant "Use WebP! For everything! With Fallbacks!"
  - bscphil 8y ago
    > "Use WebP! For everything! With Fallbacks!" I can get behind that. :-) What I meant by "for everything" was to use it for both photographic images and illustrations instead of using two different formats.

vladdanilov 8y ago

> For high quality photography purposes jpeg is bordering on useless > Use WebP! For everything! Jyrki Alakuijala, one of the creators of WebP, on WebP vs JPEG [1]: >> For high quality photography, I (and butteraugli) believe that JPEG is actually better than WebP. >> Below JPEG quality 77 WebP lossy wins, above JPEG quality 77 JPEG wins (for photography). >> This was based on the maximum compression artefact in an image -- averaging from 1000 images. Better meaning here [2]: >> Faster decode (up to around 6x faster) and less bytes needed at high quality (in comparison to butteraugli scores). [1] https://encode.ru/threads/2905-Diverse-third-party-ecosystem-for-optimization-of-webp-and-JPEG-XR-images?p=55785&viewfull=1#post55785 https://encode.ru/threads/2905-Diverse-third-party-ecosystem... [2] https://encode.ru/threads/2905-Diverse-third-party-ecosystem-for-optimization-of-webp-and-JPEG-XR-images?p=55757&viewfull=1#post55757 https://encode.ru/threads/2905-Diverse-third-party-ecosystem...

bscphil 8y ago
"For high quality photography, I (and butteraugli) believe that JPEG is actually better than WebP." That's interesting. Of course, the subjective part of that is one person's take, and the "objective" part of it is pointless because the whole point of Guetzli (the jpeg encoder) is to try to maximize the Butteraugli score, so saying that WebP gets a lower score is not significant. Personally, WebP looks a lot better to me in the direct tests of equal file size that I've seen. It even looks better than Pik, which is Google's experimental successor to Jpeg that also uses Butteraugli. And it would be odd, to say the least, if a codec from the early nineties could beat a modern one on Intra-frame coding, which has been a subject of immense research over the years. Take a look at some of these for yourself. https://wyohknott.github.io/image-formats-comparison/ https://wyohknott.github.io/image-formats-comparison/
- lstamour 8y ago
  Like MP3 encoders, JPEG encoders have only gotten better over the years, perhaps they’ve fewer bugs or compromises for compression? Also, there are newer standards for JPEG including JPEG2000 and JPEG XR, etc. Plus many other alternatives: https://developers.google.com/web/fundamentals/performance/optimizing-content-efficiency/automating-image-optimization/#how-far-have-we-come-from-the-jpeg https://developers.google.com/web/fundamentals/performance/o... So my advice is encode in multiple formats to achieve the broadest browser support and the best image quality/size trade off that you’re willing to allow. That said... it does sort of bug me that every couple years we have to revisit which codecs we’re using because the implementations keep marching on...

matt4077 8y ago

> For high quality photography purposes jpeg is bordering on useless That's the sort of faux-professional hyper-contrarianism that is "bordering on detrimental". I just checked Magnum, a somewhat professional photo agency. They use JPEG. So do the NYT, flickr, and probably the vast majority of professional and totally unprofessional websites. It seems there is some use left in the format. Not being able to print to billboard sizes doesn't diminish this. Because (a) that use case is a rounding error, and (b) WebP is still not safe for such purposes – TIFF is.

hexo 8y ago
TIFF is just a container. Doesnt say about encoding or compression (like AVI). That you find web using hardcore old style JPEGs when they've been replaced by better formats long ago also doesn't mean that JPEG is really suitable way to store or share photos - especially when your display is good hi-dpi stuff. Also - do you find GIFs technologically OK for sharing animations today when there is stuff like h.265...?