Further, with jpeg, there is progressive jpeg. Allowing an image to show up asap on slow connections instead of trying to load the whole thing all at once. When I'm on a 2g connection, I absolutely appreciate progressive jpegs, though they are pretty rare in the wild (and pagetest doesn't even recognize them).
WebP is so great except it's not (2021)
121–130 of 411 posts
Re: WebP is so great except it's not (2021)
#122> 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…
The authors point is that if you are making this tech, you should have educated eyes.
And given all the confident comments in this thread claiming the author is full of shit and there's no difference, I think their frustration is justified? If you can't see the difference in the first images that's fine but you probably shouldn't be confidently claiming to know better than the author, let alone designing an image codec.
Re: WebP is so great except it's not (2021)
#123> Second, I don’t know why all the techies around have a huge kink over sharpness, but the most challenging situations I have faced as a photographer were with smooth gradients. Or more accurately, gradients that should have been smooth and weren’t in the output.
I can tell you why: because it's hard, i.e. it's hard to compress efficiently. So if someone claims a breakthrough, they either did something extremely smart, or cut some corners.
Re: WebP is so great except it's not (2021)
#124I've noticed the same issue with WebP and have gone back to JPG/PNG for most things (jpg for photos, png for UI-type images)
I think the real problem is, like many of the commenters here, most people can't tell the difference because desktop monitors have been stuck in a deadzone of zero innovation for the last 10 years. I'm sure half the folks here are viewing his example images on a 2012-era HD 1920x1080 LCD, which is definitely part of the problem.
It's bizarre. Smaller displays (Mobile phones) and larger displays (4k TVs) have fantastic pixel densities now considering their viewing distance. However any panel in the range of 20"-40" is stuck in the mid-2000s.
Also, I think the author would have done us a favor by using example photos with lighter backgrounds (or changing the background color of his post to black). The harshness of the black images on white don't allow the eye to adjust enough to see the issue. If you put those images on a dark background its super easy to tell the difference.
Re: WebP is so great except it's not (2021)
#125Earlier quoted context omitted.
JPEG may be fast enough for all of that, but is that also true for these newer ones? Decoding the .heic pictures from my old iPhone takes 1-2 seconds on my laptop(!!) As near as I could find out that's because the iPhones and macBooks and such all have hardware support for that, and my ThinkPad doesn't.
According to the article I've linked above, JXL has twice as many points (don't remember actual speed comparison numbers) in the decoding speed comparison, and is also more parallelizable
To be honest I find that a little bit too vague to be useful.
I can't find clear numbers on this, but on e.g. [1] I read it's not too fast, but I didn't try to reproduce their results, and according to some comments a number of factors can greatly affect performance.
[1]: https://old.reddit.com/r/jpegxl/comments/zwftn2/libjxl_on_an...
Re: WebP is so great except it's not (2021)
#126I 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 was going to suggest blocking web fonts with uBlock Origin, but I get them even with JS and fonts blocked.
Turns out a CSS rule does this:
font-variant-ligatures: common-ligatures discretionary-ligatures contextual historical-ligatures;Re: WebP is so great except it's not (2021)
#127I 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.
Agreed, I don't understand why anyone would use ligatures like that on body text. Add them to titles you want to look particularly fancy if you must but please don't mess with the readability of anything longer than a paragraph.
Re: WebP is so great except it's not (2021)
#128Yes, 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.
But why should it be worse than JPEG in that respect? It's a much newer format and supposedly much better.
It's just a happy accident that the way JPEG compresses things and smooths them out visually happens to be an advantage in this particular edge case.
Re: WebP is so great except it's not (2021)
#129I 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... (f…
The first link in your Edit 2 section (the JPEG) one is broken, it should be https://eng.aurelienpierre.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/8/20...
Re: WebP is so great except it's not (2021)
#130I've noticed the same issue with WebP and have gone back to JPG/PNG for most things (jpg for photos, png for UI-type images) I think the real problem is, like many of the commenters here, most people can't tell the difference because desktop monitors have been stuck in a deadzone of zero innovation for the last 10 years. I'm sure half the folks here are viewing his example images on a 2012-era HD 1920x1080 LCD, which…
>because desktop monitors have been stuck in a deadzone of zero innovation for the last 10 years.
That's a weird thing to say unless the pixel density is your one and only measure. Regardless of that, the posterization should be perfectly visible on a 2012 FullHD monitor, or even a 1366x768 TN screen of a decade-old laptop. Most commenters here are probably viewing the pictures on a scale different from 1:1.