Is "WONFTIX" a quirky Mozilla thing, or a typo of "WONTFIX"?
A typo.
Mozilla rejects Google's WebP image format
11–20 of 30 posts
Re: Mozilla rejects Google's WebP image format
#12I find that Jeff Muizelaar's argument (not Arstechnica but what they talked about) very weak. He said WebP is not good because: * Jpeg has some fancy features not seen in WebP (4:4:4 YCrCb, CMYK support, etc) * Jpeg's compression is "good enough", and nobody cares about diskspace (cited Facebook 85%, Flickr 96% quality level) * If WebP, why not Jpeg XR? * WebP has no alpha channel support! * There are "low hanging fr…
I'd like to respond to your criticism of my argument but I'm having trouble understanding it.
As for my point about Facebook, I believe that they do care about the size of the images. However, the fact that they can be trivially and losslessly reduced in size suggests they just don't care enough to invest in optimizing them. Presumably, they have more important things to be working on. This suggests that they might also have more important things to work on than switching to webp.
Re: Mozilla rejects Google's WebP image format
#13I find that Jeff Muizelaar's argument (not Arstechnica but what they talked about) very weak. He said WebP is not good because: * Jpeg has some fancy features not seen in WebP (4:4:4 YCrCb, CMYK support, etc) * Jpeg's compression is "good enough", and nobody cares about diskspace (cited Facebook 85%, Flickr 96% quality level) * If WebP, why not Jpeg XR? * WebP has no alpha channel support! * There are "low hanging fr…
Google has yet to demonstrate that WebP produces better image quality at the same or smaller file size than what's possible with JPEG. Until Google can kill it on that test, nothing else really matters because the format has no features above and beyond JPEG and none on the roadmap. That means all WebP has going for it is the quality size argument and that's yet to be proved.
Google has shown a lot of images that are smaller file sizes and look clearly worse to even the untrained eye. Show me same quality at a smaller size or better quality at the same size and then WebP can claim it's got something going for it. That hasn't happened yet so it's a negative when stacked up against JPEG and most of the current JPEG alternatives.
Re: Mozilla rejects Google's WebP image format
#14It's important to note that this is a rejection of WebP, as it currently stands, not a forever rejection.
Google announced more features for WebP at Google I/O (including lossless and animation amongst others). I've not seen any Mozillan response to that as yet.
"Google said they'd give everyone ponies! Respond!!!"
Please point me to the roadmap document for WebP that shows which features Google intends to implement and the schedules (even rough guesses) for getting those features implemented. Without that, I don't see what there is to respond to.
Re: Mozilla rejects Google's WebP image format
#15The one time that I've found a practical application for WebP was when a client needed to fit a roughly 1-megapixel photograph in less than 5 kbytes of storage space. JPEG starts falling off a cliff in terms of image quality once you push it to extreme compression factors (like down near quality-0), but WebP degrades very gracefully and relatively linearly.
The test images we put together turned into nearly unrecognizable blocky messes when compressed with JPEG, if they fit at all. The same test images, compressed with WebP, looked surprisingly decent and were quite usable.
That said, if our photo storage budget had been 10 kbytes instead of 5 kbytes, JPEG would have been fine for the project's purposes. It was that last little squeeze that really killed JPEG.
Re: Mozilla rejects Google's WebP image format
#16I've yet to see a compelling argument for why I should want a browser with WebP support. Unless images start out lossless, and then are encoded into WebP directly, all I'll ever get out of WebP is smaller images that have more encoder artifacts - and I don't want that. I've got plenty of bandwidth; I'd rather download images in their original JPEG or PNG formats, especially if that means I can then open them up in an…
We don't have plenty of bandwidth with mobile applications. It's quite common for even basic sites to slow to a crawl on 3G. Even with LTE just around the corner, richer multimedia at higher resolutions will partially offset those gains.
Note that according to Nielsen's Law bandwidth growth rate, while sill exponential, is slower than Moore's Law (transistor count) and Kryder's Law (disk space), so we will be increasingly bandwidth limited as time continues [1]. For an example just look at SSD hard drives. To overcome bandwidth limitations the best SSDs now have whole ARM based computers in them to compress data on the fly, reorder operations on the fly, and run its own garbage collection programs just to save from going over the already very fast SATA bus which the latest drives fully saturate.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nielsen%27s_Law#Contributions
Re: Mozilla rejects Google's WebP image format
#17[deleted]
Re: Mozilla rejects Google's WebP image format
#18I find that Jeff Muizelaar's argument (not Arstechnica but what they talked about) very weak. He said WebP is not good because: * Jpeg has some fancy features not seen in WebP (4:4:4 YCrCb, CMYK support, etc) * Jpeg's compression is "good enough", and nobody cares about diskspace (cited Facebook 85%, Flickr 96% quality level) * If WebP, why not Jpeg XR? * WebP has no alpha channel support! * There are "low hanging fr…
I'd like to respond to your criticism of my argument but I'm having trouble understanding it. As for my point about Facebook, I believe that they do care about the size of the images. However, the fact that they can be trivially and losslessly reduced in size suggests they just don't care enough to invest in optimizing them. Presumably, they have more important things to be working on. This suggests that they might a…
My apology for not being clear. The five points are summary of what you said and I hope there is no confusion.
Right after the five points, I object to your "surgical arguments" which is along the line of "Jpeg is not too bad, and even if it is bad, there are ways to fix them". The truth is that Jpeg is actually a very poor format. Image artifact is very poor at low quality, and compression is very poor at high quality. While I don't know for sure whether WebP is really that much better at high quality (my limited experience showed that it is), I disagree with your arguments that there is "nothing wrong or unfixable about Jpeg". Our eyes are accustomed to poor web Jpeg quality but I think if something better comes along people will see it.
Also, given Opera and Chrome already support WebP, if Mozilla throws its weight behind it, I think Safari and IE will oblige in short order. The browser landscape is very different from the days of early PNG, and adoption will be quick. Just look at how quickly Microsoft transforms into the "#1" advocate of HTML5.
Re: Mozilla rejects Google's WebP image format
#19I've yet to see a compelling argument for why I should want a browser with WebP support. Unless images start out lossless, and then are encoded into WebP directly, all I'll ever get out of WebP is smaller images that have more encoder artifacts - and I don't want that. I've got plenty of bandwidth; I'd rather download images in their original JPEG or PNG formats, especially if that means I can then open them up in an…
We don't have plenty of bandwidth with mobile applications. It's quite common for even basic sites to slow to a crawl on 3G. Even with LTE just around the corner, richer multimedia at higher resolutions will partially offset those gains. Note that according to Nielsen's Law bandwidth growth rate, while sill exponential, is slower than Moore's Law (transistor count) and Kryder's Law (disk space), so we will be increas…
SATA is saturated because the increase in performance between platter disks and SSDs is a big discontinuity in what had been a relatively slow but steadily rising curve in the max sequential speed of a disk. Right now SATA is playing catchup, and has had two fairly major iterations in a much shorter cycle than what used to be the case. SATA 6gbps isn't saturated by even the Vertex 3.
Mobile bandwidth is a problem for completely different reasons - I wouldn't equate them.
Re: Mozilla rejects Google's WebP image format
#20Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'd like to respond to your criticism of my argument but I'm having trouble understanding it. As for my point about Facebook, I believe that they do care about the size of the images. However, the fact that they can be trivially and losslessly reduced in size suggests they just don't care enough to invest in optimizing them. Presumably, they have more important things to be working on. This suggests that they might a…
My apology for not being clear. The five points are summary of what you said and I hope there is no confusion. Right after the five points, I object to your "surgical arguments" which is along the line of "Jpeg is not too bad, and even if it is bad, there are ways to fix them". The truth is that Jpeg is actually a very poor format. Image artifact is very poor at low quality, and compression is very poor at high quali…
My position isn't that there's "nothing wrong or unfixable about Jpeg" at all. There's lots wrong and fixable with JPEG. My problem with WebP is that it currently doesn't fix enough of the problems that JPEG has and that if we adopt it right now we might end up with another format that still has problems and will have to replace WebP with yet another format that fixes those problems later. JPEG took 6 years to standardize and has lasted for nearly 20, this suggests that we might not want to rush to commit to a 8 month old image format with a bitstream that was frozen the moment it became public.
As for support in other browsers, WebM is supported by Opera, Chrome and Firefox, plus it solves problem of being a royalty-free modern video codec and neither Safari nor IE have obliged in short order. What do you think that WebP brings that will make adoption happen faster than WebM?