161–170 of 319 posts
Earlier 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
Every 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…
And that is the reason why I dont like Open Media Alliance in General. Not only does the best JPEG encoder perform as good if not better than the best WebP encoder. With a JPEG Repacker [1] JPEG file size could easily be 20% smaller. If you have to support a new format with relatively little benefits, why not just support using the repacked instead. [1] https://github.com/google/brunsli
I 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…
Of course any format can be decoded in js or wasm, that’s not an advantage and doesn’t tell us anything. The most important thing for a format is probably vendor buy-in. Why would anyone choose this over HEIF, which also uses HEVC (optional), is backed by MPEG (like it or not, MPEG represents the industry), and has vendor buy-in from Apple and Google? (I know it’s not supported in the browsers, at least not yet, but…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How? Do you know how many binaries link to some old version of libjpeg? You're breaking 99.9% of the world and 80% of it is stuff that can't even be recompiled, probably. In fact, JPEG 2000, which was standardized, in, well, 2000, already has transparency support, and 20 years later still have no meaningful support.
Because JPEG 2000 was essentially a patent-covered mess that nobody wanted to touch
Edit: Did some more research and the patent risk appears to have passed as of 2016. Still nobody seems to have interest in JPEG2000.
I 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…
Of course any format can be decoded in js or wasm, that’s not an advantage and doesn’t tell us anything. The most important thing for a format is probably vendor buy-in. Why would anyone choose this over HEIF, which also uses HEVC (optional), is backed by MPEG (like it or not, MPEG represents the industry), and has vendor buy-in from Apple and Google? (I know it’s not supported in the browsers, at least not yet, but…
Every 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…
I also don't get it why people insist on the same quality with lesser size. How about more quality and the same filesize?
So the only place they can target is where JPEG starts to break down: When you've cranked the quality knob down to 20 and you're seeing macroblocks and other artifacts in the image. But this is a niche use case as network speeds continue to improve every year.
The worst part is that they have to compete with free, and that's never easy, especially if you're talking about "well, it's still distorted, but the distortion is less displeasing to the eye", also you need to configure some pain in the ass licensing system and work out how to do the payments.
So 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…
+ WebP was initially released in 2010
> Note that Mozilla somewhat walked back from this and implemented WebP support for Firefox in 2019 I wouldn't call the decision to support a format 6 years after first evaluating it a walk back, it's a concession that the format has been adopted by the industry. If the most popular browser supports WebP and sites are using it, it makes sense that you should support it.
WebP also supports animation, and is clearly more efficient than GIF.
I 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…
I think BPG should be standardized since it provides very good image compression better than Webp.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Efficiency_Image_File_F...
Windows, OSX, iOS and Android have support baked in already