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

191–200 of 411 posts

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

#191

Post by vintermann »

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…

It's one way it was written, I bet. If my experience from old Norwegian church books is any indication, there were a lot of ligature fads. Some liked to replace all double consonants with a single consonant with a line over, for instance. It had a good couple of decades.

Do we really need to continue this stuff on computer screens.

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

#192

Post by crazygringo »

icehawk wrote: post #91

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.

That wouldn't make any sense unless there's something else going on.

It could simply be an effect of brightness -- do you have your 4K monitor set to bright, while your iPad is much dimmer? (Remember Apple devices have adaptive brightness enabled by default as well.)

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

#193

Post by capitainenemo »

xmcqdpt2 wrote: post #150
AlchemistCamp wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've been writing almost exclusively in cursive for my entire life past age 8 and that font looks crazy to me. I learned both D'Nealian and Zaner-Bloser in different schools and have seen a lot of my grandmother's writing, which was semi-Spenserian. The stroke just doesn't go in the right direction for those ligatures. My guess is that this font is based on a French (or maybe other latin) script.

These ligatures are definitely French ligatures. See for example this picture from French wikipedia, https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ligature_typograph... But also French typographical ligatures (well beyond the syntactic ones that are mandatory) aren't really related to cursives, they are a typographical convention. like the cursive s doesn't look like s and wouldn't have a ligature with t from the top of…

Perhaps the website was designed for a french audience, and an alternate theme not created for the english localisation of this article...

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

#194

Post by ghusto »

mihaic wrote: post #30

This article didn't go into the biggest problem with webp for me: the inconveninence of the format outside the browser compared to the small space saving. There are better formats (the video-codec inspired ones like heif, avif, and what might come out of h266, or even jpeg-xl), and webp just seems like a compromise without enough upside.

I feel your pain. Right-click, save as, and ... awww-goddamn it, another WebP >:|

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

#195

Post by Saris »

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 can see a difference in the gradients, but in practical use on the average website does that even matter?

Photography portfolios are the one use case where having gigantic JPEG 90 images might make sense I suppose. Although everyone is going to get annoyed at your loading times.

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

#198

Post by wizb »

Voting how appallingly obvious the banding is to me. Couple of questions over images being mixed up aside, this stuff is important.

Perception is psychological. And image formats are political.

Perhaps some truly do experience zero banding or artifacts.

But to the rest of us... "There are four lights"

https://www.startrek.com/en-un/news/the-four-lights

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

#199

Post by CyberDildonics »

barrkel wrote: post #40

The gradients on webp frequently look like video stills. Chroma subsampling reduces the density of available luminance approximations and the more heavily it's applied, the worse gradients look. High contrast high frequency details aren't affected much, but gradients can really suffer.

Chroma subsampling reduces the density of available luminance approximations

Chroma means color, and color subsampling is used to avoid taking information out of luminance channels because they are more important, so it is actually the opposite of what you are saying here.

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

#200

Post by bzzzt »

djha-skin wrote: post #183
bzzzt wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm on a 27" 4K IPS screen here and have to squint/zoom in to see the difference the author is writing about. While it's nice some people really care for the best result I think most people aren't going to notice or care about it.

I caught it on my Android 12 without full screening. He's talking about the background, not the foreground. The backgrounds color noticeably changes from shot to shot around edges.

I have to zoom in to really notice that. But both the jpg and webp have distortion - webp slightly more. Both have difficulty with edges.
Post reply on HN