4 ms·
Compression 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 compar
by wladimir 16y ago
Compression 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.