5 ms·
Yes but webp hasn't taken off as much as some would like as a defacto standard. BPG looks good upon cursory inspection. It seems to be more efficient than Web
by WhitneyLand 12y ago
Yes but webp hasn't taken off as much as some would like as a defacto standard.
BPG looks good upon cursory inspection. It seems to be more efficient than WebP and supports 42-bit color. It also has .png's features of transparency and lossless compression although I didn't see anything mentioned about animation to replace .gif.
Bonus: since it's based on h.265 hardware support will come naturally and should be just a software update for devices that already have HEVC capability.
- gpvos 12y agoNot having animation is a plus to me.
- espadrine 12y agoh.265 is the corresponding format for animation.
- dahjelle 12y agoNot to mention it has a JavaScript port that means it can work it browsers today.
- kzrdude 12y agoDoesn't a JavaScript implementation offset most of the performance benefits? Today we have browsers that are smart about when to cache the decoded image and when not, etc; does that have to be reimplemented in javascript?
- billconan 12y agoI have tried a dart webp decoder. it was so slow. decoding a small image (400*300) takes 300msecs.
- TD-Linux 12y agoThere is also a Javascript port of WebP decoding: http://webpjs.appspot.com/ http://webpjs.appspot.com/ As a bonus, you won't have to pay for a HEVC decoder license.
- billconan 12y agoI think webp supports transparency and lossless.
- GhotiFish 12y agoI feel like if you're going to base an image format off a compression standard made for video, that animation is probably a short way off.