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

341–350 of 411 posts

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

#341

Post by Unfrozen0688 »

pembrook wrote: post #124

I'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…

Not true. Monitors now are 1440p or 4k. Even at work for me.

The "issue" is that monitors last a LONG time. And thats good. We dont touch them or fiddle with them. They tend to just work. Phones and shit we keep dropping and breaking, then the battery gets bad.

Also for gaming you may even want 1080p 200hz monitor for high refresh rate and FPS over pixel density.

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

#342

Post by EdwardDiego »

rsingel wrote: post #321

Hard to take this seriously with that obnoxious font that draws curlicues connecting letters like s and t.

I did learn from it that there's a CSS property for ligatures, and the blog has set it to discretionary ligatures.

https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/CSS/font-varian...

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

#343

Post by NekkoDroid »

stjohnswarts wrote: post #335
scrlk wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Where's our OLED PC monitors? https://www.displayninja.com/oled-monitor-list/ Mainly targeted towards the gaming market at the moment.

some of those prices are insane. Why are they so much more expensive that OLED TV's of similar size? Frame rate?

I dunno about TV much since I don't use them, but I have some ideas why it might be:

- Framerate - Response time - Adaptive sync - (how prone to burn-in is OLED? Monitors often have way more static images to TVs)

I assume combing these all might just make it more expensive than just individually each feature

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

#345

Post by Unfrozen0688 »

pembrook wrote: post #124

I'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…

I see thing rings easy on my few years old AOC 1440p monitor.

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

#346

Post by Unfrozen0688 »

kec wrote: post #338
pembrook wrote: post #124

I'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…

Laptop and desktop monitors have been advancing just fine over in the Apple world with high ppi, brightness and color accuracy being standard for nearly a decade... it's just expensive and so one of the first corners cut for PC as most folks simply don't care.

I see the rings easy on my few years old AOC 1440p monitor. PC users can have way better monitors. Studio colour accuraccy or fast hz gaming

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

#347

Post by barrkel »

CyberDildonics wrote: post #199
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.

https://www.google.com/search?q=gradient+banding+4:2:0

There simply aren't enough bits of precision in the luma encoding for good gradient support most of the time, chroma fills the gaps, and chroma subsampling produces artifacts.

Webp lossy only does 4:2:0

https://groups.google.com/a/webmproject.org/g/webp-discuss/c...

These problems would go away with 10-bit AIUI. AVIF supports 10 bit but WebP does not.

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

#348

Post by jiggawatts »

pembrook wrote: post #124

I'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…

Also, only a tiny fraction of PC monitors have color gamuts wider than sRGB, proper HDR support, or any kind of calibration.

Recently I’ve been dabbling in HDR video, but I realised that the exercise is futile because I can’t send the results to anyone — unless they’re using an Apple device.

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

#349

Post by al_borland »

Unfrozen0688 wrote: post #346
kec wrote: post #338

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Laptop and desktop monitors have been advancing just fine over in the Apple world with high ppi, brightness and color accuracy being standard for nearly a decade... it's just expensive and so one of the first corners cut for PC as most folks simply don't care.

I see the rings easy on my few years old AOC 1440p monitor. PC users can have way better monitors. Studio colour accuraccy or fast hz gaming

I could see them, but only after turning my brightness up close to the max. I usually have it very low.

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

#350

Post by doctorpangloss »

vardump wrote: post #20
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... (f…

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

He's re-encoding the JPEG compressed images. That is a huge mistake.

Post reply on HN