3 ms·

Did you not read the section in the linked article about how WebP is not measurably better than JPEG?

xvilka 12y ago
I've read it. Yep, looks like they can be compared for the static images. But what about animation? And there are plenty of websites using webp already. It is not like JPEG or WebP - why not just support them both!? (or APNG and WebP).
- kevingadd 12y ago
  I imagine there's some amount of frustration on the part of people being told they should spend time implementing WebP, when APNG was a real working alternative circa ~2004 and nobody else was willing to implement it. (Admittedly, WebP does things APNG isn't capable of.) Reminds me of MNG, where we had an animation format with support for alpha and either PNG or JPEG style compression of frames, but it never got a pervasive browser implementation so it died. (I get the impression there were strong technical reasons for that, of course.) Coincidentally, MNG also indirectly solved this problem. JNG was a subset-format of MNG that provided JPEG-compressed static images with optional support for alpha, so implementing MNG implied implementing JNG. But we never got it on the web. At the very least, instead of just saying 'WebP is bad', they're putting their money where their mouth is and advancing the state-of-the-art in JPEG encoding so that people won't need WebP (other than the alpha channel use case, that is.)
- thristian 12y ago
  What's the advantage of animated WebP over WebM? Are there many websites using WebP that aren't Google properties? I'll be interested to see if a VP9- or Daala-based version of WebP is more compelling.
- maxst 12y ago
  >But what about animation? Try gif2webp and gif2apng converters on this example, and you will know: https://www.google.com/logos/doodles/2014/world-cup-2014-54-6495277649231872-hp.gif https://www.google.com/logos/doodles/2014/world-cup-2014-54-...
izacus 12y ago
So... having to serve huge 5x larger PNGs due to transparency is not measurably better? Also our empiric measurments have shown, that WebP degrades more gracefully as you lower quality (compression artifacts aren't as visible) which allowed us to save about 30% of bandwith total by serving WebP to Androids and Chrome clients.

I've read it. Yep, looks like they can be compared for the static images. But what about animation? And there are plenty of websites using webp already. It is not like JPEG or WebP - why not just support them both!? (or APNG and WebP).

kevingadd 12y ago
I imagine there's some amount of frustration on the part of people being told they should spend time implementing WebP, when APNG was a real working alternative circa ~2004 and nobody else was willing to implement it. (Admittedly, WebP does things APNG isn't capable of.) Reminds me of MNG, where we had an animation format with support for alpha and either PNG or JPEG style compression of frames, but it never got a pervasive browser implementation so it died. (I get the impression there were strong technical reasons for that, of course.) Coincidentally, MNG also indirectly solved this problem. JNG was a subset-format of MNG that provided JPEG-compressed static images with optional support for alpha, so implementing MNG implied implementing JNG. But we never got it on the web. At the very least, instead of just saying 'WebP is bad', they're putting their money where their mouth is and advancing the state-of-the-art in JPEG encoding so that people won't need WebP (other than the alpha channel use case, that is.)
thristian 12y ago
What's the advantage of animated WebP over WebM? Are there many websites using WebP that aren't Google properties? I'll be interested to see if a VP9- or Daala-based version of WebP is more compelling.
maxst 12y ago
>But what about animation? Try gif2webp and gif2apng converters on this example, and you will know: https://www.google.com/logos/doodles/2014/world-cup-2014-54-6495277649231872-hp.gif https://www.google.com/logos/doodles/2014/world-cup-2014-54-...

izacus 12y ago

So... having to serve huge 5x larger PNGs due to transparency is not measurably better? Also our empiric measurments have shown, that WebP degrades more gracefully as you lower quality (compression artifacts aren't as visible) which allowed us to save about 30% of bandwith total by serving WebP to Androids and Chrome clients.