3 ms·

This seems to be in the same spirit as audiophiles claiming they can hear the difference between various speaker cables, or the "hints of dark chocolate" in win

by rsp1984 3y ago

This seems to be in the same spirit as audiophiles claiming they can hear the difference between various speaker cables, or the "hints of dark chocolate" in wine tasting. Personally I see zero differences in the images on that page and unless the author has some really super-human vision abilities (possible! but unlikely) my guess is he doesn't either. WebP looks perfectly fine to me.

lol768 3y ago
It's very easy to see the banding if you have a half-decent monitor. You don't even need to view the images fullscreen - and I say that as someone short-sighted with deuteranomaly.
- f1shy 3y ago
  I think deuteranomaly plays absolute no role in B&W images. And if any, helps to view defects that other don't. I have it. The artefacts are visible mostly in the background, where frankly I do not care.
ageitgey 3y ago
> This seems to be in the same spirit as audiophiles claiming they can hear the difference between various speaker cables, or the "hints of dark chocolate" in wine tasting. I can see why it would seem like that if you aren't seeing it, but it's not the case. The differences in color banding are pretty big if you are on a screen where you can see the background shading clearly. The brightness of your monitor and the relative brightness of your room will matter a lot. In a bright room, you might not be able to see the subtle banding in the background of the images. But if you are looking at a bright monitor in a dark room, the difference is very obvious.
- red_trumpet 3y ago
  > In a bright room, you might not be able to see the subtle banding in the background of the images. You are right. I just made my room dark to try this out, and now I can see the banding!
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
xmcqdpt2 3y ago
To me the banding in the "lossless" (do words mean nothing anymore !?) webp pictures is super clear and looks like how I'd expect low quality JPEGs to look. It's the same kind of artifact that makes certain movies look terrible over netflix, those that have large dark blank spaces. Maybe you shouldn't look to closely because once you see it, it'll ruin your enjoyment of certain compressed media forever. And by the way I don't think the comparison with audiophile equipment is fair. In the audiophile case we are talking about using very similar output hardware to output what is effectively the same signal. Here we have huge differences in file size (35% and more between JPEG and WEBP, a lot more than that for true lossless), and taking diffs between them shows very much that the signal isn't the same. There is a compression limit under which you can see it's compressed, right? https://vole.wtf/kilogram/ https://vole.wtf/kilogram/ So it makes sense that there is some threshold sensitivity where a picture starts appearing "lossless". That threshold is going to be different from device to device and person to person.

lol768 3y ago

It's very easy to see the banding if you have a half-decent monitor. You don't even need to view the images fullscreen - and I say that as someone short-sighted with deuteranomaly.

f1shy 3y ago
I think deuteranomaly plays absolute no role in B&W images. And if any, helps to view defects that other don't. I have it. The artefacts are visible mostly in the background, where frankly I do not care.

ageitgey 3y ago

> This seems to be in the same spirit as audiophiles claiming they can hear the difference between various speaker cables, or the "hints of dark chocolate" in wine tasting. I can see why it would seem like that if you aren't seeing it, but it's not the case. The differences in color banding are pretty big if you are on a screen where you can see the background shading clearly. The brightness of your monitor and the relative brightness of your room will matter a lot. In a bright room, you might not be able to see the subtle banding in the background of the images. But if you are looking at a bright monitor in a dark room, the difference is very obvious.

red_trumpet 3y ago
> In a bright room, you might not be able to see the subtle banding in the background of the images. You are right. I just made my room dark to try this out, and now I can see the banding!

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

xmcqdpt2 3y ago

To me the banding in the "lossless" (do words mean nothing anymore !?) webp pictures is super clear and looks like how I'd expect low quality JPEGs to look. It's the same kind of artifact that makes certain movies look terrible over netflix, those that have large dark blank spaces. Maybe you shouldn't look to closely because once you see it, it'll ruin your enjoyment of certain compressed media forever. And by the way I don't think the comparison with audiophile equipment is fair. In the audiophile case we are talking about using very similar output hardware to output what is effectively the same signal. Here we have huge differences in file size (35% and more between JPEG and WEBP, a lot more than that for true lossless), and taking diffs between them shows very much that the signal isn't the same. There is a compression limit under which you can see it's compressed, right? https://vole.wtf/kilogram/ https://vole.wtf/kilogram/ So it makes sense that there is some threshold sensitivity where a picture starts appearing "lossless". That threshold is going to be different from device to device and person to person.