221–230 of 319 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Animations should just be videos. No reason for an animated image format, an animated image is just a video with no audio track.
My understanding is that webp is video. That is, it's a still frame using the vp8 codec.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If transparency was the main issue, adding transparency to JPEG sounds easier than coming up with a completely new encoding, especially a lossy one.
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.
Every iOS and macOS device supports JPEG 2000… that should be pretty meaningful.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Animations should just be videos. No reason for an animated image format, an animated image is just a video with no audio track.
Eh. An animated image (an image that contains some sort of video media, whether gif or h264 or whatever) is a hint to the browser to play it automatically and without sound. If everything were true video (say, mp4) you couldn’t make that distinction. As long as the video in the animated video is encoded properly — as real video and not a sequence of frames as gif does — then animated images definitely have their plac…
says the same thing.
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.
In fact, JPEG 2000, which was standardized, in, well, 2000, already has transparency support, and 20 years later still have no meaningful support. Every iOS and macOS device supports JPEG 2000… that should be pretty meaningful.
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.
In fact, JPEG 2000, which was standardized, in, well, 2000, already has transparency support, and 20 years later still have no meaningful support. Every iOS and macOS device supports JPEG 2000… that should be pretty meaningful.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You can argue the toss over quality, but JPEG can't do transparency while WebP can. So if you need transparency, you need to compare the size savings to PNG, not JPEG. WebP is the clear winner there.
WebP also supports animation, which is important because GIFs are notoriously large.
That's because WebP focused so strongly on being a GIF equivalent that it also dropped all things that made WebM efficient and instead adopted GIF's awfully inefficient architecture (just dumb frames overlaid on top of each other, without motion vectors or predicted frames).
Safari shows how it can be done: it supports silent MP4/H.264 straight in . You get all the ease of use GIF, order of magnitude smaller file, and hardware acceleration.
It's unintuitive, but well-compressed videos are cheaper to decode than dumb "animation" formats, because file size differences are so massive that it's cheaper to decompress a small amount of complex data than to chew through vast amounts of poorly compressed data.
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…
It's not theoretical. It's the JPEG XT spec. It adds alpha channel and HDR to standard JPEG in a backwards-compatible manner.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Safari Mobile is a broken mess not worth supporting.
If Safari was your main browser during your web development you wouldn't have any issues would you? Realistically people should be using either Safari or Firefox during their development. Then check for chrome compatibility after.
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…
That's not to say it isn't lower quality, when looking in detail you see it... but for a lot of use cases (and in video) much better experience in general.