Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 38

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

Hybrid View

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    14,630

    Default 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. #2
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Czech Republic
    Posts
    166

    Default 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! :/

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    371

    Default

    Quote 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

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    457

    Default

    Quote 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.

  5. #5

    Default

    Quote 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.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Poland
    Posts
    115

    Default

    Quote 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.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    766

    Default

    Quote 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.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    845

    Default

    Quote 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.

    Quote 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.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Czech Republic
    Posts
    166

    Default Well...

    Quote 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."

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    457

    Default

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

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •