251–260 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.
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…
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.
JPEG "can't" do depth maps either, and yet it manages to do them just fine.
"Portrait mode" on Android is simply JPEG + greyscale JPEG embedded in metadata.
If anyone really wanted transparency, it is very easy to add it to JPEG.
That said, in practice, transparency is not needed in non-vector / non-generated graphics formats. The nature doesn't really have an alpha channel, photographs certainly do not.
Transparency is extra information, and can be passed along as such.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
WebM (despite being closely related to WebP) can be 5-10x more efficient than WebP. 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.26…
Also video decoding is cheaper because most GPU/SoCs supports hardware decoding.
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.
No need for image formats either as an image is just a very short single frame video.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's the same situation with VP9. It's supposed to be a competitor to HEVC, but in reality lack of serious psychovisual optimizations in any of the publicly available encoders make it at best on par with x264 compression-wise, while being significantly more computationally expensive. Its only appeal is that it's royalty-free, but since all devices that support VP9 decoding also support h.264, is it really worth it?
Using VP9 recently has really made me appreciate how great x264 is both in terms of quality and speed.
There exist other VP9 encoders, but all for specialized purposes.
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…
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.
There are some situations where transparency is legitimately needed but im not sold it can justify webp and all that comes with it.
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.
>JPEG can't do transparency JPEG "can't" do depth maps either, and yet it manages to do them just fine. "Portrait mode" on Android is simply JPEG + greyscale JPEG embedded in metadata. If anyone really wanted transparency, it is very easy to add it to JPEG. That said, in practice, transparency is not needed in non-vector / non-generated graphics formats. The nature doesn't really have an alpha channel, photographs ce…
Even if transparency was add to JPEG right now, it would take sometime to become available everywhere, and you would have tons of legacy devices showing broken transparency.
The advantage of a new format that supports transparency from is interception is that every device that is compatible with it will display it correctly. So there is no issue with some devices supporting the format partially.
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.
Do you though? The transparent png use case is largely being replaced by svg. There are some situations where transparency is legitimately needed but im not sold it can justify webp and all that comes with it.