I'm more interested in hearing about support for AV1. * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AV1
AVIF is in the comparison, and the article notes it's in Firefox (behind a flag) and ought be coming to Chrome soon.
Is WebP really better than JPEG?
81–90 of 319 posts
Re: Is WebP really better than JPEG?
#82This is a weird comparison, while I get the comparison of non-transparent images jpeg or webp are probably fine. However the main benefit of webp is alpha backgrounds or transparency. It can destroy PNG when it comes to compression and size.
I would say it really depends on the PNG compression library you are using.
Tools like RIOT or Compressor.io can give you optimal results on PNG compression.
Re: Is WebP really better than JPEG?
#83Earlier quoted context omitted.
Safari Mobile is a broken mess not worth supporting.
I think by the nature of being the second most used browser, it's worth supporting. You don't have to like supporting it however. https://www.w3counter.com/globalstats.php
Shades of IE6 Stockholm syndrome.
Re: Is WebP really better than JPEG?
#84I wonder, why nobody mentioned Patrice Bellard's BPG[1]. It is based on HEVC and can be supported in any browser via a Javascript. From his website: BPG (Better Portable Graphics) is a new image format. Its purpose is to replace the JPEG image format when quality or file size is an issue. Its main advantages are: * High compression ratio. Files are much smaller than JPEG for similar quality. * Supported by most Web b…
can be supported in any browser via a Javascript
I think you answered your own question right there.
I'm not going to use a dumptruck to bring a single sack of sand to my garden.
Re: Is WebP really better than JPEG?
#85I wonder, why nobody mentioned Patrice Bellard's BPG[1]. It is based on HEVC and can be supported in any browser via a Javascript. From his website: BPG (Better Portable Graphics) is a new image format. Its purpose is to replace the JPEG image format when quality or file size is an issue. Its main advantages are: * High compression ratio. Files are much smaller than JPEG for similar quality. * Supported by most Web b…
This is kind of neat, but when I think of "HEVC-based image codec" I think of Apple's .heic format. Unfortunately I didn't see a high-level comparison to HEIC on Bellard's site, so I'm not sure what the advantages of BPG are. Wouldn't I want to use the more common format?
Re: Is WebP really better than JPEG?
#86Every time I run an image comparison, the webp version looks worse and yet Google insists it's the same quality. It's baffling.
Even if the above were just an individual... bafflement? and not an actual issue, the size savings really don't seem worth the compatibility hassle, the extra manpower/workflow complexity to support 2 formats, the additional storage (and caching) caused by this duplication.
And the above is if it's done RIGHT. 80% of people outside this forum won't understand that you're not supposed to convert from a lossy format to another, and just convert jpegs to webp.
Webp seems so pointless. A progressive jpeg with an optimized Huffman table can be understood by a 27 year old decoder without issues, achieves 90% of the quality/size claims of webp and can be produced losslessly from your source jpegs. This is without even touching Arithmetic Coding (also lossless, part of the official standard, but poorly supported due to some software patents, even though they all expired by now), or playing with customized DCT quantization matrices to get more compressible outputs (incurs a generation loss, but produces standard files).
Re: Is WebP really better than JPEG?
#87Summary: - No. It's roughly the same. Mandatory Google bash comment: - It's mainly another wheel reinvention from Google, because reasons.
> Mandatory Google bash comment: - It's mainly another wheel reinvention from Google, because reasons.
WebP seems to have been the first "let's just use intra-frame coding" image format out there though, and it's hardly the first format to have tried to unseat JPEG.
WebP is 4 years older than BPG (Bellard's HEVC-based format), 5 years older than HEIF (MPEG's same) and AVIF was only specified 9 years later.
Re: Is WebP really better than JPEG?
#88FWIW one of the reasons this has become relevant again is because the next version of Safari supports WebP. The article's discussion of AVIF is interesting but you're not going to be able to use it on the web any time soon. I'd be curious to see a WebP vs PNG comparison, since (IIRC) it has a lossless mode too.
Lossless is pretty easy, there's no subjective qualities to compare, just file size.
WebP Lossless almost always results in a smaller file than PNG. I have seen exceptions to this, but they're sufficiently rare that it's not worth worrying about.
Re: Is WebP really better than JPEG?
#89Earlier quoted context omitted.
Are you sure that’s Chrome and not a website which selects the format based on the client’s advertised capabilities? I know Facebook did that and it confused a lot of people when a .jpg wasn’t a JPEG.
For me was the same problem on Chrome. Switched to Firefox, same sites are happy to let me save their images as .jpeg instead of .webp
I thought this might have been caused by a difference in whether image/webp is included in the Accept header on requests for web pages (not requests for images), since some people who run web sites prefer to serve different html to UAs that support and do not support webp rather than serving different image formats at the same URL. But when I looked at the Accept header Firefox sends for pages, it included image/webp. So I'm not sure what these sites are doing.
Re: Is WebP really better than JPEG?
#90So what's this AVIF format they mention that's actually better than both? WebP did not take off. But will AVIF be any better?
> So what's this AVIF format they mention that's actually better than both?
AVIF is an image format based on the intra-frame coding of AV1, as WebP is to VP8 and HEIF is to HEVC.
AV1 and HEIF are super recent though, the AVIF 1.0 spec was only released in early 2019. By comparison, WebP was initially released in 2019. So AVIF currently has very little support (it's behind flags in Firefox and that's it).
However all the big names are part of AOM, which oversees AV1 (and AVIF): http://aomedia.org/membership/members/
So chances are pretty high it'll get widespread support, eventually.
There’s one problem though: like WebP, AVIF just is not solving a big issue.