5 ms·

Mozilla misses one important of WebP : Alpha channel. Today PNG 24 is the only way to achieve transparency with a 24 bits palette, resulting in unnecessary hug

by tangue 13y ago

Mozilla misses one important of WebP : Alpha channel. Today PNG 24 is the only way to achieve transparency with a 24 bits palette, resulting in unnecessary huge files. As a webdesigner, WebP would replace PNG 24, not jpeg. Anyway, I have this strange impression that Mozilla is more akin to spent ressources dismissing the format rather than implementing it or finding an alternative.

ZeroGravitas 13y ago
They're aware of that as a startup they fund asked them to look at WebP again because it worked so well for their use-case of icons with alpha. I believe that is why they reopened the bug. It's not covered by this study though.
jws 13y ago
Years ago I wrote a little proof of concept burying an alpha channel in the JPEG application data area and pulling it back out in the client browser to render JPEG with alpha. It worked well, for some browsers. Now I expect it would work well on most of them, though I haven't looked at it in years. It was received with zero interest. That may mean no one needs JPEG with alpha. You can read more at http://jim.studt.net/jpeg-alpha/ http://jim.studt.net/jpeg-alpha/
- ralfd 13y ago
  That is pretty nifty! I also liked your graphic explantation with the asrtronaut.
HeyImAlex 13y ago
>Today PNG 24 is the only way to achieve transparency with a 24 bits palette, resulting in unnecessary huge files. That's not necessarily true. If you only have completely-transparent and completely-opaque pixels color type 2 will work, and if your total unique colors (RGBA) number less than 256 you can still do plaetted.
pornel 13y ago
I've developed lossy PNG encoder that creates 3-4 times smaller PNG files: http://pngmini.com/lossypng.html http://pngmini.com/lossypng.html
- ksec 13y ago
  My thoughts exactly. So why isnt this being used instead.
  - pornel 13y ago
    It should be! It's so hard to spread knowledge about image optimization. There are still developers who use (non-animated) GIF images. Photoshop has still makes JPEG optimization an option :( It probably made sense on 8Mhz Macintosh, but today it takes user longer to tick that checkbox than it takes to optimize a JPEG.
- ye 13y ago
  Does it beat PNGOut or OptiPNG?
  - pornel 13y ago
    It's complementary. You can optimize lossy PNG files with these tools to get even bigger savings (that's what http://tinypng.org http://tinypng.org does). But if you just compare file sizes then pngquant2 wins by a wide margin.
pornel 13y ago
> I have this strange impression that Mozilla is more akin to spent ressources dismissing the format rather than implementing it or finding an alternative. Mozilla is acting responsibly here. It's not just effort to add the format to their browser. The format will spread to entire ecosystem, requiring websites to support it (e.g. can you upload photo or avatar in WebP?), image viewers, image editors, rich text editors, etc. When Facebook implemented Chrome-only WebP users complained, because they couldn't use images anywhere else. Also take into account that bandwidth doubles about every 5 years[1], so if WebP is giving 20% gain, it only advances the web by 1 year. What WebP makes possible today will be possible anyway next year, and we won't have to spend years re-building interoperability that JPEG has built over 20 years. [1] http://www.akamai.com/stateoftheinternet/ http://www.akamai.com/stateoftheinternet/
- cromwellian 13y ago
  Were they acting responsibly when they implemented Theora into Firefox even though it has inferior quality too? Are we now saddled with a new video format spread to an entire ecosystem and websites required to support it? Are users pissed off that they "Save As" Theora files but can't use them in other apps? WebP isn't just about efficiency over JPEG, the biggest benefit comes from replacing PNG and GIF, which people use for alpha transparency and animation respectively. These are practical, immediate problems that today's web developers face, can they wait a few more years until Xiph approved codec does better?
  - pcwalton 13y ago
    > Were they acting responsibly when they implemented Theora into Firefox even though it has inferior quality too? Yes, because of the IP/patent issues, which do not apply to GIF (nowadays), PNG, and JPEG.
    - cromwellian 13y ago
      The issue of widespread usage of alpha transparency and animated images do apply however. Rather than hold up WebP over a future imagined codec that doesn't exist pending research, a never-going-to-implement-anyway HEVC, or a doesnt-have-all-the-features JPEG, why not work with the WebP folks to fix any deficiencies? It's highly reminiscent of fight over the ACA in Congress. "Repeal it". Rather than work with making the bill better or fixing the problems, just filibuster.

by tangue 13y ago

ZeroGravitas 13y ago

They're aware of that as a startup they fund asked them to look at WebP again because it worked so well for their use-case of icons with alpha. I believe that is why they reopened the bug. It's not covered by this study though.

jws 13y ago

Years ago I wrote a little proof of concept burying an alpha channel in the JPEG application data area and pulling it back out in the client browser to render JPEG with alpha. It worked well, for some browsers. Now I expect it would work well on most of them, though I haven't looked at it in years. It was received with zero interest. That may mean no one needs JPEG with alpha. You can read more at http://jim.studt.net/jpeg-alpha/ http://jim.studt.net/jpeg-alpha/

ralfd 13y ago
That is pretty nifty! I also liked your graphic explantation with the asrtronaut.

HeyImAlex 13y ago

>Today PNG 24 is the only way to achieve transparency with a 24 bits palette, resulting in unnecessary huge files. That's not necessarily true. If you only have completely-transparent and completely-opaque pixels color type 2 will work, and if your total unique colors (RGBA) number less than 256 you can still do plaetted.

pornel 13y ago

I've developed lossy PNG encoder that creates 3-4 times smaller PNG files: http://pngmini.com/lossypng.html http://pngmini.com/lossypng.html

ksec 13y ago
My thoughts exactly. So why isnt this being used instead.
- pornel 13y ago
  It should be! It's so hard to spread knowledge about image optimization. There are still developers who use (non-animated) GIF images. Photoshop has still makes JPEG optimization an option :( It probably made sense on 8Mhz Macintosh, but today it takes user longer to tick that checkbox than it takes to optimize a JPEG.
ye 13y ago
Does it beat PNGOut or OptiPNG?
- pornel 13y ago
  It's complementary. You can optimize lossy PNG files with these tools to get even bigger savings (that's what http://tinypng.org http://tinypng.org does). But if you just compare file sizes then pngquant2 wins by a wide margin.

pornel 13y ago

> I have this strange impression that Mozilla is more akin to spent ressources dismissing the format rather than implementing it or finding an alternative. Mozilla is acting responsibly here. It's not just effort to add the format to their browser. The format will spread to entire ecosystem, requiring websites to support it (e.g. can you upload photo or avatar in WebP?), image viewers, image editors, rich text editors, etc. When Facebook implemented Chrome-only WebP users complained, because they couldn't use images anywhere else. Also take into account that bandwidth doubles about every 5 years[1], so if WebP is giving 20% gain, it only advances the web by 1 year. What WebP makes possible today will be possible anyway next year, and we won't have to spend years re-building interoperability that JPEG has built over 20 years. [1] http://www.akamai.com/stateoftheinternet/ http://www.akamai.com/stateoftheinternet/

cromwellian 13y ago
Were they acting responsibly when they implemented Theora into Firefox even though it has inferior quality too? Are we now saddled with a new video format spread to an entire ecosystem and websites required to support it? Are users pissed off that they "Save As" Theora files but can't use them in other apps? WebP isn't just about efficiency over JPEG, the biggest benefit comes from replacing PNG and GIF, which people use for alpha transparency and animation respectively. These are practical, immediate problems that today's web developers face, can they wait a few more years until Xiph approved codec does better?
- pcwalton 13y ago
  > Were they acting responsibly when they implemented Theora into Firefox even though it has inferior quality too? Yes, because of the IP/patent issues, which do not apply to GIF (nowadays), PNG, and JPEG.
  - cromwellian 13y ago
    The issue of widespread usage of alpha transparency and animated images do apply however. Rather than hold up WebP over a future imagined codec that doesn't exist pending research, a never-going-to-implement-anyway HEVC, or a doesnt-have-all-the-features JPEG, why not work with the WebP folks to fix any deficiencies? It's highly reminiscent of fight over the ACA in Congress. "Repeal it". Rather than work with making the bill better or fixing the problems, just filibuster.