191–200 of 319 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
WebP also supports animation, which is important because GIFs are notoriously large.
Animations should just be videos. No reason for an animated image format, an animated image is just a video with no audio track.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
WebP also supports animation, which is important because GIFs are notoriously large.
Animations should just be videos. No reason for an animated image format, an animated image is just a video with no audio track.
Or let me rephrase, why is WebP as a animated picture / video format insufficient?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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
It's impossible to test for without buying expensive hardware, so I'll pass.
Is a Raspberry Pi "expensive hardware"?
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.
All that is true for WebP too, isn't it? If you cannot recompile a piece of software, how are you going to add WebP support to it? And you aren't breaking it. In a theoretical world where transparency got added to JPEG, software that doesn't support it will show a fully opaque JPEG (adding transparency in a backwards compatible way isn't rocket science). Compare that to using WebP instead, where software that can't h…
An implicit assumption is that "smaller file size is better" and if this discussion were about audio would probably be mp3 vs ogg vorbis... but flac is the BEST to em because I want all of the audio data in the best lossless compression scheme. As a photographer, I would like to have ALL of my image data in a losslessly compressed format as well. What is the FLAC equivalent in the photo/image space?
Some formats that are lossless: PNG, FLIF. Some formats that have a lossless mode: TIFF, WebP, BPG, JPEG XR. FLIF claims to have the best ratios, and they have some benchmark info on their web page ( https://flif.info/ ). There are other things to consider like encoding/decoding speed, compatibility, and patents/licensing.
Oops, I failed to mention JPEG XL!
JPEG XL is newer technology, more likely to be supported by browsers, and it pretty much obsoletes FLIF. It's still pretty new but may be the best bet.
More info: https://jpeg.org/jpegxl/index.html
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…
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.
- supports lossless
- supports alpha
- excellent decode speed
- open business friendly license
In essence, it eliminates PNG.
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…
What’s interesting is that Google’s Lighthouse tool for measuring site speed pushes for “Next Gen” image formats like WebP. But I often find that WebP files are larger than jpg, too. Yet Lighthouse recommends it. And, of course it’s a great idea to follow Google’s advice since they include the Lighthouse score in their ranking algorithm.
AFAIK they don't? They use some of the metrics which are provided in Lighthouse (Largest Contentful Paint, First Input Delay, Cumulative Layout Shift) all play a role in ranking, but the score itself is meaningless.