11–20 of 121 posts
How can a lossy format replace a lossless format? The author clearly doesn't know what they're talking about.
Note that BPG is based on HEVC still frames, and may be more patent-emcubered than current alternatives. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Better_Portable_Graphics#Paten...
I welcome an image format alternative to webm.
Wow, this throws me back to the early 90s, when we would basically have the same discussions about JPEG vs GIF. At the time most graphics programs could open a GIF you downloaded with your modem, but if you wanted to view a JPEG you had to jump out to a separate program, and everyone said that as soon as there was native JPEG support no one would use GIF anymore.
Really? The BPG is WAY worse, IMHO. It's immediately apparent. I noticed it with my eyes before I parsed the text.
The quality between the two formats is stunning... BPG version looks blurry compared to the mp4 version.
Author says that the BPG version is re-encoded from the MP4, so lower quality is to be expected. Looking at the linked comparison tool[1], it seems that while BPG and WebP both have fewer artefacts than JPEG at a given file-size, BPG seems to achieve this with waaaay too much smoothing. Seriously, check out the engineer's eyelids in [1]. [1]: http://xooyoozoo.github.io/yolo-octo-bugfixes/#production&bp...
Separately, though, take a look at other features of the image: the beams running lengthwise down the shell, specifically the ones on the top left of the image. The BPG version makes them look niceeeeee and crisp, whereas the WebP version looks very bad.
Other places where I think the BPG compression looks noticeably better: her uniform (right sleeve, right leg, etc), the rivets along the top edge of the platform she's standing on, where she's grabbing that power tool.
One thing I noticed in the BPG version is that some gradient areas have more visual banding compared to the WebP version.
Note that BPG is based on HEVC still frames, and may be more patent-emcubered than current alternatives. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Better_Portable_Graphics#Paten...
How can a lossy format replace a lossless format? The author clearly doesn't know what they're talking about.
GIF is extremely lossy for this use case since they can't do 24-bit color. In addition to being unnecessarily gigantic, animated GIFs also look terrible for just about anything that isn't pixel art. GIF itself is a lossless format, but when you use it for stuff like this the whole process is super lossy.
How does this compare to FLIF? The responsive features of FLIF seem fantastic. http://flif.info/