4 ms·
Advantages: Theoretically better compression than JPEG (but ... so was JPEG-2000). Disadvantages: The encoder actually loses to JPEG in many tests and almost
by DarkShikari 16y ago
Advantages:
Theoretically better compression than JPEG (but ... so was JPEG-2000).
Disadvantages:
The encoder actually loses to JPEG in many tests and almost everything it encodes looks like a blurry mess.
No support for any color format besides 4:2:0.
Almost no support in image editing applications.
An order of magnitude slower than JPEG.
Somehow I don't think this is much of a "JPEG killer". Its technology is 10 years out of date, entirely copy-pasted from H.264, and its featureset isn't even close to equalling JPEG's, let alone adding new features that people wanted.
- wladimir 16y agoCompression is slower. But it isn't entirely clear to me whether decompression is slower than JPEG too. That's the thing that matters. I cannot find any comparison, but that's because WEBP is a very bad name for searching on google: it gets shortened to 'web'.
- DarkShikari 16y agoDecompression is dramatically slower due to VP8's arithmetic coding.
- JacobAldridge 16y agoTry +WEBP - The + tells Google to ignore what it thinks and just listen to you, the user, dammit.
- benmccann 16y agoYes, or put it in quotes.
- JacobAldridge 16y agoAdding this way after the discssion in case it appears in future searches - the quotes don't really help with words that can be split into other words. My great-grandfather's surname is Aland. I did some searching on him recently - a search for "Aland" also returns results for "Al and" and "a land", neither of which are relevant. Using the + prevents that.
- ZeroGravitas 16y agoSurely for images served over the web the key measurement is the speed gain due to smaller filesize minus the loss due to extra decompression time. It is after all a project hosted under Google's speed project. http://code.google.com/speed/webp/ http://code.google.com/speed/webp/ Which elsewhere claims that 99 human years are wasted due to uncompressed web content each day. http://code.google.com/speed/articles/use-compression.html http://code.google.com/speed/articles/use-compression.html Opera certainly seem to think they can compress and decompress the WebP image on-the-fly and still come out ahead speed-wise compared with the original (at a cost of quality) and their old JPEG system (with improved quality), at least over low-bandwith connections.
- ZeroGravitas 16y agoWhen you say the encoder loses to JPEG and is blurry, are you talking about the new re-written encoder they released a month ago, or the old one that was just the WebM encoder? Release note: https://groups.google.com/a/webmproject.org/group/webp-discuss/browse_thread/thread/3a2784f36680f740/9d242f2506b16dbc https://groups.google.com/a/webmproject.org/group/webp-discu...
- DarkShikari 16y agoSkal's new encoder on its slower modes does seem to do a good bit better. Its approach is quite slow compared to the regular VP8 encoder (which was already slow), though. The code is actually rather interesting to read -- it basically uses K-means for a large portion of the encoding process, which is applicable in this case because of VP8's non-adaptive arithmetic coder. I've never seen an encoder done quite this way before.
- usertm 16y agoI guess they'll use in their Turbo technology which is really great for mobile phones. Apart from North America and Europe, the rest of the world is still dealing with limited bandwidth caps and slow speed of GPRS/EDGE.
- liuliu 16y agoI never understand why JPEG XR (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JPEG_XR http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JPEG_XR) didn't take off. It seems that Microsoft really has some management problem to push things forward or they simply don't care that much about it after all.