Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

eng.aurelienpierre.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 411 posts

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

#151

Post by izacus »

627467 wrote: post #66

> 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…

For starters, anyone that ever worked with a codec, will know that you don't compare them with ONE SINNGLE IMAGE.

This whole basic idea of the blog post is just to generate more whining and clicks and not to actually make a comparison between formats that's worth a basic smell test.

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

#152

Post by onurtag »

In my opinion the worst and most distinguishable downside of webp is the forced 4:2:0 chroma subsampling. On many images with bright colors you can clearly see the color and brightness loss without an educated eye.

On comparison [1] you can clearly see that the top right balloon has lost its vibrant red color. On comparison [2] the bright blue neon art on the center has lost its brightness.

[1] https://storage.googleapis.com/demos.webmproject.org/webp/cm...

[2] https://storage.googleapis.com/demos.webmproject.org/webp/cm...

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

#153

Post by MindSpunk »

pembrook wrote: post #135
orbital-decay wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

> That's a weird thing to say unless the pixel density is your one and only measure. Is it though? We now have OLED TVs and OLED smartphones. Where's our OLED PC monitors? On every measure, if you care about colors/contrast/black+white levels/resolution/density, the average computer monitor has fallen far behind. You can't even buy a smartphone that has a panel half as bad as most PC monitors on the market. And, at l…

> Where's our OLED PC monitors?

https://computers.scorptec.com.au/computer/Oled-Monitor

They've been around for years.

PC monitors have been improving constantly with high refresh rates, local dimming HDR + 10 bit color, adaptive sync, OLED and more.

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

#154

Post by account42 »

PetitPrince wrote: post #78

A bit of context: Aurelien Pierre is known to be a major contributor to Darktable (open source raw developper / catalog ; in other words, an open source Adobe Lightroom), and is known to have strong opinion about the correct way do to stuff, to the point of abrasiveness and to the point where he has forked Darktable into its own stuff (Ansel; see HN discussion some times ago https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38390…

Thanks for the info, going to have to check out Ansel. Do you know if its still compatible with the Darktable formats?

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

#155

Post by datastoat »

colejohnson66 wrote: post #25
j1elo wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But why to draw hairs between all 'ct' and 'st'? As a non-native speaker, is that some English weirdness that I have yet to learn about?

It's how English was written in the "olden times". At that time, little flairs (such as ligatures) were pretty common, and were very fanciful. Some simpler ligatures (like ff) survive today, but embellished ones (like ct) were toned down. It's just a stylistic choice to draw them one way or another, but it's jarring to see the fancier ones in "modern" texts because we're used to the simpler styles. Fun fact: The Germ…

According to the Wikipedia page for eszett [0] it evolved from "sz", as the name "eszett" suggests. (I only realized the link with "z" when I saw "tz" ligatures on street signs in Berlin.) Given that its typographic origin is sz, and given that its name literally says sz, I wish the spelling reformists had gone for sz rather than ss!

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%9F

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

#156

Post by account42 »

hannob wrote: post #81

Is webp still relevant these days? You can use picture/source/srcset to provide different image formats depending on browser support. avif for modern browsers, jpg for maximum compatibility. Means people with old browsers will either get lower quality or a few more bytes, but that seems like an okay tradeoff.

jxl for modern browser, jpg for the rest would be a much better solution, especially if the source is jpg

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

#158

Post by LeifCarrotson »

thaumasiotes wrote: post #48
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.

> I'm sorry, but I just can't read the text with those st and ct ligatures. The whole font is bad. It looks pixilated and blurry, which can only be explained by that being the intended look. It's bizarre.

It doesn't look pixelated on my machine, it looks pretty nice - here's a screenshot at 200% zoom:

https://i.imgur.com/WE1tbIB.png

The ligatures are definitely an unusual artistic choice...seems like the sort of thing you'd finally get used to 4 chapters into a book, but until you're immersed in it, it's quote distracting.

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

#159

Post by nicoburns »

chrismorgan wrote: post #47
ColonelPhantom wrote: post #3

It'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.

Yeah, I'm quite hopeful that this is one where the developer backlash will cause a U-turn. I suspect it was seen as something that most people didn't care about, and now that it's clear that they do then likely something will be done about. I can't see any reason why Google would be strongly against it's inclusion.

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

#160

Post by superkuh »

>Look at the original JPEG at quality 85 :

https://photo.aurelienpierre.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/..." alt="" />

Sorry, I can't. That doesn't actually display any image at all in my browser because you're relying on javascript execution to switch the img src to it's actual source. You don't need to do this for lazyload to work anymore. There's browser native lazyload. Just put the actual image in the src.

Post reply on HN