The banding is SUPER monitor dependent, its noticeable on my 4k monitor, super apparent on a different monitor with a terrible LCD panel, and not at all visible on my iPad.
I wonder if the author took that into consideration.
WebP is so great except it's not (2021)
91–100 of 411 posts
Re: WebP is so great except it's not (2021)
#92I 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.
Somehow these ligatures trigger subvocalization in my brain, with the silent "author's voice" speaking with a lisp. Probably not what was intended.
Re: WebP is so great except it's not (2021)
#93Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not, it's just that people who spend thousands of dollars and hours into photography are more susceptible to care. Same with music, most people are fine with $15 earphones while musicians or music enthusiasts will find them disgusting.
Music is probably a bad example of your point, as that field is famous for audiophiles insisting they can hear a difference for various things only for them not being able to tell the difference in a double blind test.
It's more like 64kbs vs 128kbps than copper vs gold cables if you want to keep the analogy
Re: WebP is so great except it's not (2021)
#94I never gave it much thought until I started posting my 3d renders online. Began to find serious issues, especially around posterized backgrounds as the article mentions. A problem which is exacerbated by the vignettes that renderers offer.
Re: WebP is so great except it's not (2021)
#95Comparing with Beyond Compare:
--
Hoping the conversion doesn't add extra noise, I converted them (with ImageMagick: `convert image.webp image.png`) and compared them (Beyond Compare doesn't support WEBP).
Of course I have a non-educated eye as the article puts it, but if still with machine help I cannot see a difference in light dithering, there must be something off.
The second photo (of a man) is more clear in proving the point. This should probably have been used as the first example in the article.
Re: WebP is so great except it's not (2021)
#96Earlier quoted context omitted.
I must admit, I'm not sure why JPEG XL is viewed so favourably on HN, it's not something I know a ton about, but my understanding is that the big advantage of AVIF is that you can reuse hardware decoders built into devices for AV1 for the images. It being a strict improvement over JPEG is nice for the developers not having to go back to the source image for an upgrade, but that seems like a pretty small benefit that…
JPEG XL is viewed favorably on HN because it's the underdog to evil Google. Before they wrote their complaint article about Chrome removing support (after significant time of noone using the format), noone here gave it a thought. It's not like anyone is attacking Firefox for not enabling it either. This is not a format quality thing, this is "let's have a chance to complain about Google" thing again ;) I mean, this w…
The support was never complete to begin with, so the removal wasn't due to nobody using it. Some rivalry between different teams inside Google is more likely.
Re: WebP is so great except it's not (2021)
#97It's such a shame Google decided to block adoption of JPEG XL: it's a strict improvement over classic JPEG (you can losslessly reencode JPEG to JXL and reduce the size, due to a better entropy coder in JXL!) and JXL has various other upgrades compared to 'classic' JPEG. In the meantime, let's hope AVIF or whatever manages to pick up the slack, and/or other browsers decide en masse to support JPEG XL anyway; that woul…
Google haven’t explicitly decided to block adoption of JPEG XL. They removed an incomplete implementation from Chromium which had never been shipped, because it was a maintenance burden and they weren’t ready to commit to supporting it. That’s quite a different thing. It may indicate a broader strategic direction, but it doesn’t necessarily.
That charitable interpretation would have been okay unless the Chrome team (yes, "Google" is not a single entity here) tried to publish a faulty benchmark [1] that has been thoroughly criticized [2] which never has been answered so far.
[1] https://storage.googleapis.com/avif-comparison/index.html
[2] https://cloudinary.com/blog/contemplating-codec-comparisons
Re: WebP is so great except it's not (2021)
#98I 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.
I wiped my phone screen a few times until I accepted it is part of the text. Is that a toggle in the text editor? And if it is then should reader clients have a counter toggle for it? I'm thinking autocrlf style.
Re: WebP is so great except it's not (2021)
#99> To the non-educated eye, this might look ok, but for a photographer it’s not, and for several reasons. There surely must be better examples to show "non-educated" plebs (to use the tone of the post) why webp is bad and to justify the post and the tone. I'm on Android, maybe this is why all pic quality look the same? Also - yeah, if you are making pics for educated eyes: don't use tech that is not suitable for educa…
See the discussion here [1], you need to view it full size to be able to tell. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38653224
A close up section of the same zone in the images would make them visible. I could hardly see the artefacts in the first place as my attention was caught with the highly contrasted parts of the images.
Re: WebP is so great except it's not (2021)
#100I guess I don't get the context?
WebP is barely supported. For decades the only choice in lossy compression is JPEG, which notoriously sucks for diagrams and basically anything that isn't a photograph. So the rest of the world finally gets a format they can use, and the photographers are angry that the world doesn't revolve around them anymore?
So what if it is worse for photography? Should we continue chasing our tails for another ten years before we find the perfect format? I'm sick of data visualizations drowning in JPEG artifacts.
I'm not opposed to AVIF or whatever, but I don't care about the author's complaints. JPEG is still there. If you want to use it, go ahead.