Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Chrome 32 Beta Has A Vibration API, Animated WebP

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #11
    Originally posted by rohcQaH View Post
    It's patent encumbered and despite google's claims there remains a risk for users.
    There's a software patent risk with all code, but Google themselves has given a perpetual patent grant for the patents they have in conjunction with Webp, and since Facebook saw no reason not to use webp (and they likely had their lawyers do a decent patent evaluation before they started to use webp) I'd say you are in no greater risk using webp than any other image format out there.

    Originally posted by rohcQaH View Post
    It doesn't compress better than jpeg, unless you compare using the broken psychovisual model WebP is optimizing for.
    I've had good results on some images and also some results where jpeg is better, so overall I'm not that impressed by the lossy compression, although it does have the advantage over standard jpeg with that of an alpha channel.

    I basically only use webp for lossless compression where it beats PNG hands down in everything I've tried.

    Overall I think it will be extremely difficult for any new lossy image format to make inroads as jpeg is simply 'good enough' and supported EVERYWHERE.

    Comment


    • #12
      Originally posted by RahulSundaram View Post
      No. Mozilla shouldn't add any new image format within the browser introducing additional fragmentation and potential security risks without first demonstrating that WebP provides enough of an advantage to counterbalance the negative factors. Just because Google has decided to release a new format doesn't mean Mozilla should immediately sign up especially as the format is rapidly evolving. Let them take their time. It is not like IE is going to add support for it anytime soon either.
      I would like to mention APNG. A "wonderful" Mozilla creation.
      All of sudden pots and kettles come to my mind, don't know why.

      Comment


      • #13
        Originally posted by sobkas View Post
        I would like to mention APNG. A "wonderful" Mozilla creation.
        All of sudden pots and kettles come to my mind, don't know why.
        APNG is a very tiny change to an existing widely adopted format and not an entirely different format. Apples and oranges come to my mind and I do know why

        Comment


        • #14
          Unlike what others said I watched presentations, videos etc and WebP is a lot like systemD or the Opus audio codec (and don't give me the apples/oranges shitty excuse) - it fits pretty much every usecase, is often (a lot) better and is pretty much free as in beer and porn and solves most problems like no other alternative does. When taken all of it's pros/cons together, just like with Opus/systemd (or even to a degree wayland) - it is the clear winner, though needless to mention - not perfect.

          The biggest issue with WebP is that it's a lot slower at encoding and somewhat slower at decoding. Other than that it: yields better quality than jpg, uses less space, animates like gif, has true alpha support, better meta support, has lossless mode but unlike png creates smaller lossless files, also unlike png its API is not crappy (like that of libpng) etc etc. Don't be lazy or morons, look it up on youtube for all the pros and cons.

          Comment


          • #15
            Originally posted by sobkas View Post
            I would like to mention APNG. A "wonderful" Mozilla creation.
            APNG was a hell of a lot better than GIF, it allowed lossless animated images with 32-bit colour, which wasn't offered by any other web image format at the time.

            Comment


            • #16
              I was curious about this "animated WebP" and how was it any different from plain webM video. Turns out it's a similar hack to webp as apng was to png, so completely different from webm.

              Originally posted by dee. View Post
              APNG was a hell of a lot better than GIF, it allowed lossless animated images with 32-bit colour, which wasn't offered by any other web image format at the time.
              No, it was offered by MNG, which pre-existed APNG

              Without digging up that old horse, I saw little value in "show the first frame" of APNG - if you want an animation, the first frame is practically useless. Even worse, it may give the user the impression it's supposed to be a static image, while a "missing support" box lets the user know it's supposed to be something else.

              Unlike what others said I watched presentations, videos etc and WebP is a lot like systemD or the Opus audio codec (and don't give me the apples/oranges shitty excuse) - it fits pretty much every usecase, is often (a lot) better and is pretty much free as in beer and porn and solves most problems like no other alternative does. When taken all of it's pros/cons together, just like with Opus/systemd (or even to a degree wayland) - it is the clear winner, though needless to mention - not perfect.
              I applaud you for the phrase "free as in porn"

              Still, flawed comparison: Opus is indeed better in every way, Wayland and systemd are not.

              Comment


              • #17
                Originally posted by curaga View Post
                Still, flawed comparison: Opus is indeed better in every way, Wayland and systemd are not.

                Have you tried/installed systemd??

                Comment


                • #18
                  Originally posted by curaga View Post

                  Still, flawed comparison: Opus is indeed better in every way, Wayland and systemd are not.
                  What? All of those are from scratch, so you'd think the audio codec would take less time than the others. Just because it takes longer doesn't make it better or worse. Besides, systemd is actually awesome.

                  I've also been tracking the Daala codec, every once in a while I'd compile it and try out the encoder. It's certainly doing very good for a codec from scratch that has only been in development for about a year: 2012-02-22 is the first commit but it said it was to import someone's Daala stuff, so it's probably around a year.

                  But wait, this is about animated webp right? I should probably perform my own tests because the only one I saw, that had gif vs webp vs apng but using a gif source. It's one of the stupidest things to do in a test, even if it's file size. GIF is a lossy format and then they convert to a lossless format (Webp is both lossy and lossless)

                  PNG's strength comes from being able to produce a small file, similar to how GIF can do it, where you basically tell it that the PNG can only have these colours selected. It didn't need all that extra information and it's still lossless if done right. The other strength is that PNG is basically the lossless image standard right now. Webp's strength comes from Google and everything that Google does. They make sure it is fast and small and gets the job done, like everything else. If I remember right it's based off TIFF or at least uses a TIFF wrapper.

                  Comment


                  • #19
                    Originally posted by profoundWHALE View Post
                    But wait, this is about animated webp right? I should probably perform my own tests because the only one I saw, that had gif vs webp vs apng but using a gif source. It's one of the stupidest things to do in a test, even if it's file size. GIF is a lossy format and then they convert to a lossless format
                    You only call that test "stupid" because you don't like that APNG seems to be winning there.

                    Actually, for filesize comparison, such "gif vs webp vs apng" test makes perfect sense, because it ensures all 3 animations are identical. It's like comparing ZIP and RAR, you have to use identical set of files. Otherwise it's not fair.

                    Even in their announcement on the Chromium Blog, google devs used the same approach, they took a rotating cube GIF and converted it (very lossy) into WebP using gif2webp tool. If you want to perform your own tests, you will probably use gif2webp as well.

                    Originally posted by profoundWHALE View Post
                    Webp's strength comes from Google and everything that Google does. They make sure it is fast and small and gets the job done, like everything else.
                    You shouldn't blindly trust them. Test and verify.

                    Comment


                    • #20
                      Originally posted by curaga View Post
                      Without digging up that old horse, I saw little value in "show the first frame" of APNG - if you want an animation, the first frame is practically useless.
                      That's like saying "thumbnails are useless" when you search for a certain animated gif on google images.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X