Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

WebP 0.6 Coming With Performance Improvements

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

  • WebP 0.6 Coming With Performance Improvements

    Phoronix: WebP 0.6 Coming With Performance Improvements

    For those interested in Google's WebP lossy/lossless image format that tends to deliver much superior compression vs. quality results to JPEG, a new release is on approach...

    http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?pag...ebP-0.6-Coming

  • #2
    From official announcement

    - 1/23/2017: version 0.6.0
    * lossless performance and compression improvements
    * miscellaneous performance improvements (SSE2, NEON, MSA)
    * webpmux gained a -duration option allowing for frame timing modification
    * new img2webp utility allowing a sequence of images to be converted to animated webp
    * API changes:
    - libwebp:
    WebPPictureSharpARGBToYUVA
    WebPPlaneDistortion

    Comment


    • #3
      They've been talking about adding this to Firefox since 2010...

      https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=600919

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Inopia View Post
        They've been talking about adding this to Firefox since 2010...

        https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=600919
        Um, https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1294490

        It's on the way.

        Comment


        • #5
          i consider WebP the ultimate image format because it supports everything
          - alpha channel / transparency
          - animation
          - both lossless and lossy encoding
          also its fast and has good quality
          Last edited by davidbepo; 25 January 2017, 05:16 AM.

          Comment


          • #6
            Is there any serious comparison where WebP doesnt look equal or worse than a Jpeg of the same size?
            The only positive "comparison" was google`s own where they compared it to random images from the web, ignoring that the settings for Jpeg just weren`t comparable (not adjusted for good quality/size tradeoff) and encoders unspecified.

            Comment


            • #7
              Does WebP have an unfortunate name?
              It seems like a good file format but the name makes it sounds like its use is for the web only, and that kind of limits the desire to use it.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by discordian View Post
                Is there any serious comparison where WebP doesnt look equal or worse than a Jpeg of the same size?
                The only positive "comparison" was google`s own where they compared it to random images from the web, ignoring that the settings for Jpeg just weren`t comparable (not adjusted for good quality/size tradeoff) and encoders unspecified.
                this one:
                https://www.andrewmunsell.com/blog/jpg-vs-webp/
                another:
                http://www.gaia-gis.it/raster_benchm...g-vs-webp.html

                i found another but it was outdated

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by liam View Post
                  They sure are taking their sweet time with it. So long in fact that WebP got eclipsed by a completely new format BPG (2014).


                  Originally posted by discordian View Post
                  Is there any serious comparison where WebP doesnt look equal or worse than a Jpeg of the same size?.
                  There's one with all the relevant formats:
                  https://xooyoozoo.github.io/yolo-octo-bugfixes


                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Inopia View Post
                    They sure are taking their sweet time with it. So long in fact that WebP got eclipsed by a completely new format BPG (2014).



                    There's one with all the relevant formats:
                    https://xooyoozoo.github.io/yolo-octo-bugfixes

                    BPG looks much better, why does no browser support it yet?

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X