WebP is so great except it's not (2021) • Hacker News Board

Re: WebP is so great except it's not (2021)

#11

Post by bawolff » Fri, Dec 15, 2023, 11:51 AM UTC

I dont get it.

The author seems to care highly about image quality, but also wants to squeeze out as many bytes as possible?

Bandwidth is cheap. If we are talking about photography as art, why would you be trying to scrap a few kb off in the first place?

Re: WebP is so great except it's not (2021)

#12

Post by catach » Fri, Dec 15, 2023, 11:51 AM UTC

laserbeam wrote: post #6

I know this is not constructive and I'm sorry, but I just can't read the text with those st and ct ligatures. It makes me feel like the author is trolling with them and I shouldn't take the text seriously. I know that's an exaggeration but that's what the design makes me feel.

Luckily Reader Mode or disabling CSS takes care of the oddity.

Re: WebP is so great except it's not (2021)

#13

Post by rado » Fri, Dec 15, 2023, 11:51 AM UTC

Yes, there is some banding, because it's a web format designed for small file size. 10-bit AVIF has smooth gradients in smaller size, thought not as well supported yet.

Re: WebP is so great except it's not (2021)

#14

Post by Zetobal » Fri, Dec 15, 2023, 11:52 AM UTC

V__ wrote: post #4

I opened the first two pictures in separate tabs and switched quickly between them. There is zero difference. Tried it on two different monitors, Chrome and Firefox. Same with the pictures of the guy at the end. EDIT: The last comparison is webp twice, he linked it wrong. Here is the jpg one, still no difference: https://eng.aurelienpierre.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/8/20...

Here is the diff: https://imgur.com/a/QT8oNqj

>> To the non-educated eye, this might look ok, but for a photographer it’s not, and for several reasons.

webp is a banding nightmare.

Re: WebP is so great except it's not (2021)

#15

Post by syslog » Fri, Dec 15, 2023, 11:52 AM UTC

laserbeam wrote: post #6

I know this is not constructive and I'm sorry, but I just can't read the text with those st and ct ligatures. It makes me feel like the author is trolling with them and I shouldn't take the text seriously. I know that's an exaggeration but that's what the design makes me feel.

At first I thought I had an unusual amount of very small hair on my display.

Re: WebP is so great except it's not (2021)

#16

Post by hackererror404 » Fri, Dec 15, 2023, 11:52 AM UTC

Isn't this like anything else? No one size solution typically works for everything. If you are a photographer/artist and true close to perfect rendering is for you... don't use WebP as the format to present your images.

Re: WebP is so great except it's not (2021)

#17

Post by snvzz » Fri, Dec 15, 2023, 11:52 AM UTC

webp should have been skipped entirely.

Let's focus on AVIF.

Re: WebP is so great except it's not (2021)

#18

Post by rewmie » Fri, Dec 15, 2023, 11:53 AM UTC

V__ wrote: post #4

I opened the first two pictures in separate tabs and switched quickly between them. There is zero difference. Tried it on two different monitors, Chrome and Firefox. Same with the pictures of the guy at the end. EDIT: The last comparison is webp twice, he linked it wrong. Here is the jpg one, still no difference: https://eng.aurelienpierre.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/8/20...

[dead]

Re: WebP is so great except it's not (2021)

#19

Post by lm28469 » Fri, Dec 15, 2023, 11:53 AM UTC

V__ wrote: post #4

I opened the first two pictures in separate tabs and switched quickly between them. There is zero difference. Tried it on two different monitors, Chrome and Firefox. Same with the pictures of the guy at the end. EDIT: The last comparison is webp twice, he linked it wrong. Here is the jpg one, still no difference: https://eng.aurelienpierre.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/8/20...

> There is zero difference.

There is a clear difference though, I can see it in all my monitors, from desktop to laptop and even mobile. It's especially visible in the top right quarter.

That being said if you're not into photography you might just not care enough to see it

Re: WebP is so great except it's not (2021)

#20

Post by vardump » Fri, Dec 15, 2023, 11:54 AM UTC

V__ wrote: post #4

I opened the first two pictures in separate tabs and switched quickly between them. There is zero difference. Tried it on two different monitors, Chrome and Firefox. Same with the pictures of the guy at the end. EDIT: The last comparison is webp twice, he linked it wrong. Here is the jpg one, still no difference: https://eng.aurelienpierre.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/8/20...

I checked those images on a Macbook 16 M2 Max (standard P3-1600 nits preset), Chrome 120.0.6099.109. All of the WebP images had pretty bad posterization, while JPEG examples did not.

Edit: You have to actually click for a full size image to see the truth. Those inline images had pretty bad compression artefacts, even the supposed lossless versions.

So https://eng.aurelienpierre.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/8/20... (full size lossless WebP image) looks fine, but inline version of the same image https://eng.aurelienpierre.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/8/20... looks terrible.

Edit 2: The difference between...

https://eng.aurelienpierre.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/8/20... lossy-noise.jpg (216 kB JPEG)

https://eng.aurelienpierre.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/8/20... (150 kB WebP)

https://eng.aurelienpierre.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/8/20... (301 kB WebP)

... is pretty obvious. Both of the WebP examples, even that 301 kB version, show clearly visible posterization.

I wonder if there's some issue with the WebP encoder (or the settings) he is using?

Edit 3:

It should be noted that monitor gamma and color profile might affect gradient posterization visibility.