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

Is WebP really better than JPEG?

siipo.la

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

281–290 of 319 posts

Re: Is WebP really better than JPEG?

#281

Post by jonsneyers »

SiVal wrote: post #209
ksec wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And that is the reason why I dont like Open Media Alliance in General. Not only does the best JPEG encoder perform as good if not better than the best WebP encoder. With a JPEG Repacker [1] JPEG file size could easily be 20% smaller. If you have to support a new format with relatively little benefits, why not just support using the repacked instead. [1] https://github.com/google/brunsli

I thought the JPEG people were supposed to have JPEG XL [1] out by now, and it was supposed to be the open standard for JPEG's next generation. Anyone know what's happening there? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Photographic_Experts_Gro...

Yes, here's an update: https://cloudinary.com/blog/how_jpeg_xl_compares_to_other_im...

TL;DR: We're now at "Draft International Standard" stage; soon we'll enter "Final Draft International Standard" stage and at that point the bitstream is effectively frozen and adoption can start. The officially ISO-published International Standard will take until first half of 2021, but the codec should be ready to use before that.

Re: Is WebP really better than JPEG?

#282

Post by 0-_-0 »

tracker1 wrote: post #230
zmix wrote: post #66

I wonder, why nobody mentioned Patrice Bellard's BPG[1]. It is based on HEVC and can be supported in any browser via a Javascript. From his website: BPG (Better Portable Graphics) is a new image format. Its purpose is to replace the JPEG image format when quality or file size is an issue. Its main advantages are: * High compression ratio. Files are much smaller than JPEG for similar quality. * Supported by most Web b…

I just have to re-affirm I do appreciate the lower quality render path of hevc (blurry) more than the default for jpeg and others (blocky mess). I really don't visually notice the lower quality reductions at much lower quality levels/file sizes than comparable blocky formats. That's not to say it isn't lower quality, when looking in detail you see it... but for a lot of use cases (and in video) much better experience…

To be fair, decent JPEG deblocking should have been a solved problem already and included in decoders, see for example:

https://github.com/victorvde/jpeg2png

Re: Is WebP really better than JPEG?

#283

Post by jonsneyers »

floatingatoll wrote: post #68
Eric_WVGG wrote: post #12

I just relaunched a website that makes extensive use of photographic collages that necessitate alpha backgrounds. They were previously shipping "retina-grade", multi-megabyte images all over, a typical page load could easily reach 25mb. I managed to refit it with ` ` tags using WEBP as well as JP2. The latter was a great deal of trouble, it appears that "the community" (notably Gatsby and Contentful) are very happy t…

On iOS, any screenshot taken while iOS background blur is active will balloon from 0.15MB to 15.0MB, because iOS uses PNG for screenshots and blurred backgrounds are apparently irreducible by PNG. Does the WebP format permit bounded areas of an image to be represented at lower fidelity with a smooth blur, so that the blurred-background effect can be stored and retrieved using fewer pixels and a blur algorithm rather…

HEIF, AVIF and JPEG XL all support multi-layer images, so you could e.g. encode the background in a lossy layer (which works well on blurry stuff) and foreground in a lossless layer (which works well on screenshots).

Re: Is WebP really better than JPEG?

#284

Post by Narishma »

gsich wrote: post #242
MaxBarraclough wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> people insist on the same quality with lesser size. Because a great proportion of people browsing the web have slow connections and/or data caps. > How about more quality and the same filesize? We're already able to get acceptable quality.

>Because a great proportion of people browsing the web have slow connections and/or data caps. That doesn't matter one bit. See "webpages are doom". >We're already able to get acceptable quality. Apparently not when some examples are worse.

Maybe it's just me but I couldn't tell the difference between the comparison images in the article without zooming in a bunch.

Re: Is WebP really better than JPEG?

#285

Post by krick »

bscphil wrote: post #261

Unfortunately, targeting same SSIM makes this test basically bullshit. It would be far better to make images that are the same size, and then we can use both our eyes and various objective metrics to compare the images. The reason for this is basically that most codecs do not target SSIM internally. They're using their own algorithms to determine how to allocate bits, so two images with the same SSIM may look better…

This. JPEG has way too many artefacts on naturally smooth areas (like sky) to be ever considered a pinnacle of lossy image compression. WebP or not, but some adaptive technique must be the future, if there is any space for lossy compression in the future at all.

Re: Is WebP really better than JPEG?

#286

Post by robin_reala »

t0ughcritic wrote: post #269
pornel wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

WebM (despite being closely related to WebP) can be 5-10x more efficient than WebP. That's because WebP focused so strongly on being a GIF equivalent that it also dropped all things that made WebM efficient and instead adopted GIF's awfully inefficient architecture (just dumb frames overlaid on top of each other, without motion vectors or predicted frames). Safari shows how it can be done: it supports silent MP4/H.26…

Do people really use Safari?

Somewhere between 25 and 50% globally based on your audience.

Re: Is WebP really better than JPEG?

#287

Post by rasz »

slx26 wrote: post #211

Question for people more knowledgeable on the topic: is it reasonable to expect a future where audio, image and video are easy to work with and compression / decompression / encoding / decoding is done transparently by the hardware? Like, an OS read call giving you a standard plain format directly? I know PS5 is doing something like that for 3d assets, but I wonder how difficult it would be to do this and just spare…

It has been said PS5 uses Kraken. If its this http://www.radgametools.com/oodlekraken.htm then nothing really changes. PS4 games use RAD Kraken today. Texture assets themselves have standardized long time ago, currently on the desktop we are at http://www.reedbeta.com/blog/understanding-bcn-texture-compr... with history going all the way back to 1990 patents for Apple Video 'road pizza' codec, later ripped off by S3 and re-patented as S3TC texture compression in 1997.

Re: Is WebP really better than JPEG?

#288

Post by amq »

_AzMoo wrote: post #237
Andrex wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a point of data, Animated PNG is finally (as of ~2019) supported natively among all major browsers. https://caniuse.com/#search=animated%20png Edit- I was unaware the recently-announced Safari 14 Technical Preview adds support for WebP too! Making both formats viable for all browsers, finally.

Recently we've been going through the browser stats on our websites, and while globally apparently IE is dying, it's certainly not dead yet. In the specific industry I work in (Heavy Automotive Retailing, eg Truck Sales and Servicing), we see upwards of 30% of our users on browsers <= IE11. All of our sites are getting poor lighthouse scores on performance with the main suggestion to be changing to webp, but that wou…

There is a way to offer both jpg and webp, letting the browser to choose.

Re: Is WebP really better than JPEG?

#289

Post by waheoo »

httpsterio wrote: post #265
waheoo wrote: post #264

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why not? They display an image. Bit if a weak argument to say they dont matter when theyre being used to create the same final outcome.

How would you show a photographed image as a svg? Either you would have to "vectorize" the image which would look totally different or you'd create a grid of vectors with different hue values, ultimately representing pixels in an extremely inefficient format. Raster graphics and vector graphics can't be compared because sure, you could create 2 million vector squares with individual positions, sizes and colors and al…

Why would you show a photograph as an svg? You wouldnt. Thats what jpegs are for.

We're discussing transparency and the use case for it. I dont think ive ever heard of someone wanting transparency in a photo. The only times i see the need is if theyre doing something that is better off in a vector format. I.e. png, which is being supplanted by svg, which alleviates the size problems raised about pngs.

I.e. webp is a format solution in search of a problem.

Downvoted, wow, petty.

Re: Is WebP really better than JPEG?

#290

Post by jhoechtl »

ubercow13 wrote: post #206
chrismorgan wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What has AOMedia to do with this? That alliance is what has made AV1 (and thus AVIF), which is clearly superior to JPEG. AOMedia had nothing to do with WebP (though Google is a member, and WebP is based on VP8, and AV1 is based in part on VP9 which was the successor to VP8).

Is it better? The AVIF examples in the article look even worse than the WebP ones

At 30% reduced size. The true comparison would be at the same file size, which format is able to squeeze more perceivable information into the same bucket?
Post reply on HN