Originally posted by brent
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Google Continues Pushing Its WebP Image Format
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by profoundWHALE View PostAll I read was this and it was enough for me to totally agree with you.
Comment
-
Originally posted by psychoticmeow View Post
A few years ago I was involved in creating doctorwho.tv for BBCWW. This website currently has huge banner images that use alpha transparency, and I know for a fact that they'd like to have more elaborate images still. The problem with this is that these images are absolutely huge to download: one of the banners is 850KB alone, using WebP this same image would be served at roughly 150KB. You just can't do that with JPEG.
Now it's true that you can get pretty decent compression with PNG these days using some fairly neat tools. But the problem with these tools is that they either require a human to check the results, or they require integration into existing software (in the case of BBCWW, into PHP extensions). Either the BBCWW ditches automatic image processing in favour of having humans curate all images at a huge cost, or they adopt WebP or another similar format.
Is the BBC not able to work pngout, or zopfli into their workflow? I wonder, because using pngout on your image saves 3%, and zopfli saves 6% both losslessly. They are missing out on a 50KB savings , simply because they can't run a command line program? Here is a losslessly compressed version of your banner http://i.imgur.com/NUhAsrA.png I made it completely automatically.
Comment
-
Originally posted by zanny View PostOpus and Dalaa seem be proving great competency on Xiphs part to just toss out 30 years of cruft and figure out modern ways to get great balances of compression, latency, and decode time. I'd love to see what they could do with static images.
Comment
-
Originally posted by bondTongue View PostIs the BBC not able to work pngout, or zopfli into their workflow? I wonder, because using pngout on your image saves 3%, and zopfli saves 6% both losslessly. They are missing out on a 50KB savings , simply because they can't run a command line program? Here is a losslessly compressed version of your banner http://i.imgur.com/NUhAsrA.png I made it completely automatically.
I should also point out that I no longer work for R&B Creative who are responsible for the BBCWW websites, so I won't actually be doing anything
Comment
-
Originally posted by tomato View Postwhy it will never support them? (honest question)
As for other features see http://www.libjpeg-turbo.org/About/Jpeg-9. In short.. they are non-standard extensions and rejected by ITU-T.
Comment
-
Originally posted by quikee View PostOK, I was wrong about arithmetic which is supported by libjpeg-turbo but rarely anybody enables it (there were also patent problems with arithmetic but I think all patents have now expired)..
Even so, when you use jpeg with arithmetic you never know if the user will be able to see it or not - which makes this really useless.
As for other features see http://www.libjpeg-turbo.org/About/Jpeg-9. In short.. they are non-standard extensions and rejected by ITU-T.
Comment
Comment