Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Chrome 32 Beta Has A Vibration API, Animated WebP

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

  • Chrome 32 Beta Has A Vibration API, Animated WebP

    Phoronix: Chrome 32 Beta Has A Vibration API, Animated WebP

    The Google engineers working on the Chrome/Chromium web-browser have released the beta to the upcoming version 32 release...

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=MTUyMjI

  • #2
    Damn

    What pisses me off is that Mozilla is completely ignoring the WebP for some stupid political reasons (see the bug report). It could be the image format of the future for frak sake! :/

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Redi44 View Post
      What pisses me off is that Mozilla is completely ignoring the WebP for some stupid political reasons (see the bug report). It could be the image format of the future for frak sake! :/
      There's political reasons? When I got interested in WebP, I looked up a bunch of articles about what it provides. What I saw (from tests and live examples) was that WebP provided nothing over the current JPG compression method. In fact, in the examples it showed that WebP actually had more artifacting when increasing compression.

      But that was earlier this year, maybe it's gotten better? :P

      Comment


      • #4
        Vibration API? Brace yourselves, porn sites with vibrator controls are coming. Really Google?

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Daktyl198 View Post
          There's political reasons? When I got interested in WebP, I looked up a bunch of articles about what it provides. What I saw (from tests and live examples) was that WebP provided nothing over the current JPG compression method. In fact, in the examples it showed that WebP actually had more artifacting when increasing compression.

          But that was earlier this year, maybe it's gotten better? :P
          Website developers should be free to support/use any FOSS/open image format that they want. Mozilla should support it and let the web decided whether to use it or not. It's not like its supporting a closed image type, that Mozilla should suppress.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by phoronix View Post
            Phoronix: Chrome 32 Beta Has A Vibration API, Animated WebP

            The Google engineers working on the Chrome/Chromium web-browser have released the beta to the upcoming version 32 release...

            http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=MTUyMjI
            Very happy that goog adopted this webapi. Hopefully the rest will eventually make their way in but webkit is pretty far behind at the moment.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by dh04000 View Post
              Website developers should be free to support/use any FOSS/open image format that they want. Mozilla should support it and let the web decided whether to use it or not. It's not like its supporting a closed image type, that Mozilla should suppress.
              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.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by dh04000 View Post
                Vibration API? Brace yourselves, porn sites with vibrator controls are coming. Really Google?
                Don't be silly. You will have full control over which websites you allow and this is primary for mobile web applications.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by dh04000 View Post
                  Website developers should be free to support/use any FOSS/open image format that they want.
                  Right. And sooner or later, all browsers must support 935739 different formats, just because some web developer decided to use them. Like WMF. It has published documentation, it has its use cases, is better than SVG in some circumstances. Someone surely wants to use it. Why not?


                  We don't need hundreds of conflicting standards. We need a few good standards that cover all cases. There's no corner that WebP would fill. It's patent encumbered and despite google's claims there remains a risk for users. It doesn't compress better than jpeg, unless you compare using the broken psychovisual model WebP is optimizing for. It isn't even a real standard. WebM was documented as "what this bunch of source code we tagged v1.0 produces" and will remain bug-for-bug-compatible with it. WebP followed from that.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Well...

                    Originally posted by Daktyl198 View Post
                    There's political reasons? When I got interested in WebP, I looked up a bunch of articles about what it provides. What I saw (from tests and live examples) was that WebP provided nothing over the current JPG compression method. In fact, in the examples it showed that WebP actually had more artifacting when increasing compression.

                    But that was earlier this year, maybe it's gotten better? :P
                    Hmm, I've seen quite different results (and even did my own test with sw compiled from source...), mind if you could link the articles? Also the bug report looks like that:

                    Mozilla: "Blah blah it doesn't support XY"
                    People: "It does that since the last release, duh."
                    Mozilla: "Mmmkey, but what about XZ?"
                    People: "That will be merged tomorrow!"
                    Mozilla: "Fine, could you give us some patches?"
                    People: "Here you go, link-to-git."
                    Mozilla: "Oh, well the library still sucks, we won't support it."

                    Comment


                    • #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

                              Working...
                              X