31–40 of 58 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Did you try -q 100? That might be an idiom for lossless.
I did, and it produced a huge .webp file, 6.7 times larger than the original PNG.
We could make the web a lot faster and/or do some really cool stuff if we had a lossy image format with an alpha channel. It'd be nice this got picked up by all browser vendors. Sadly, I fear that they'll be squabbling over it, just like they are with VP8/Ogg/h.264. I really believe that the companies involved in web standards are holding progress back at this point. At the same time, even if they all agreed to put t…
We do!
http://pngquant.org & http://pngmini.com/vs-webp/
Sadly, very few people know about it and make good use of it. Mostly it's lack of awareness and dominance of poor/outdated tools (cough Photoshop cough) that don't fully utilize formats we have.
No one needs smaller images anymore. With today's bandwidths getting higher, image sizes are irrelevant. One-time 25% decrease in image size, years in development and more years to widespread adoption, not worth it.
Yes yes yes we do! Bandwidth may be increasing, but as displays get better we are going to be serving up ever increasing assets. Sites are already serving up 2x'd versions of images for iOS devices that have higher resolution screens. These higher res images essentially quadruple your file size. On top of that these devices are mobile, which lag behind broadband/ethernet connections AND many of which have data limit…
http://imageoptim.com/tweetbot.html
It's annoying that we have the tools. We don't need new format for this, just use what we have already!
We could make the web a lot faster and/or do some really cool stuff if we had a lossy image format with an alpha channel. It'd be nice this got picked up by all browser vendors. Sadly, I fear that they'll be squabbling over it, just like they are with VP8/Ogg/h.264. I really believe that the companies involved in web standards are holding progress back at this point. At the same time, even if they all agreed to put t…
> We could make the web a lot faster and/or do some really cool stuff if we had a lossy image format with an alpha channel. We do! http://pngquant.org & http://pngmini.com/vs-webp/ Sadly, very few people know about it and make good use of it. Mostly it's lack of awareness and dominance of poor/outdated tools ( cough Photoshop cough ) that don't fully utilize formats we have.
It's worth underlining the fact that "lossy" here means "really nicely dithered 256-RGBA-palette PNG8s", but (as the gallery examples demonstrate), that may be sufficient for most of the kinds of images that have significant transparency and that would be likely to be found on a webpage (even sprites for a canvas game).
Honestly, I would still like to see WebP support in spite of its drawbacks (thanks software patents!) for it's better definition of "lossy" and for saner alpha compression, but between better pngs from software like this and upcoming support for DXT5 in WebGL, most of the compelling market drivers may be gone.
required reading: http://x264dev.multimedia.cx/archives/541 - don't know how relevant it is now, but still a good read.
We could make the web a lot faster and/or do some really cool stuff if we had a lossy image format with an alpha channel. It'd be nice this got picked up by all browser vendors. Sadly, I fear that they'll be squabbling over it, just like they are with VP8/Ogg/h.264. I really believe that the companies involved in web standards are holding progress back at this point. At the same time, even if they all agreed to put t…