tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1386948037384435441.post721624392910701759..comments2024-03-01T18:53:33.429-08:00Comments on Jeff Muizelaar: WebPJeff Muizelaarhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17483047845050494642noreply@blogger.comBlogger31125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1386948037384435441.post-25476358060651374552013-03-14T13:14:28.323-07:002013-03-14T13:14:28.323-07:00As web developers, we just want to be able to use ...As web developers, we just want to be able to use the best technology to make the best experience for users. I'd like to start using WebP in my sites, but can't because of lack of support in Firefox... too bad.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05647059734528048088noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1386948037384435441.post-54651411189269443472012-10-18T09:27:13.012-07:002012-10-18T09:27:13.012-07:00I have to agree with many of the commenters, now i...I have to agree with many of the commenters, now is the time to reconsider integrating webp to help improve the format by gaining critical mass.<br />Firefox is visibly starting to fall behind the curve and browser market share the way IE did, so for the sake of progress please re-evaluate the specification and your stance - at the very least post to the bug if you feel this way still.Benjaminhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10064894451633576098noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1386948037384435441.post-82341964497169525462012-06-22T07:12:00.262-07:002012-06-22T07:12:00.262-07:00I agree that the format is now incredibly compelli...I agree that the format is now incredibly compelling:<br /><br />1) It is open<br />2) It supports lossy transparency compression (and lossless)<br />3) Lossy or lossless, it features great compression/quality rates<br />4) It has a ton of useful features (transparency, XMP metadata, ICC profiles, animation, tiling, etc)<br />5) It is evolving at an amazing rate<br /><br />JPEG has been around for 20 years, and web images have stagnated with the closed format. It's time to move on, and an <b>open</b> platform like WebP with great <b>performance</b> and <b>features</b> is something solid to build upon.<br /><br />It's time to re-think JPEG for the web.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01088699725178988343noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1386948037384435441.post-62506178441214127552012-01-30T00:33:07.070-08:002012-01-30T00:33:07.070-08:00Well, the format changed a lot and now supports a ...Well, the format changed a lot and now supports a lot of the features that where missing.. ( http://code.google.com/speed/webp/ ). Would be nice if firefox addopts this new format. I think there isn´t really that much extra work in supporting that special image format, because the api of the lib doesn´t really change.. So it´s just about updating the lib via a pull request once it´s used in firefox..<br /><br />I think the "let´s stick our head into the sand like a turkey" approach doesn´t work here, because we now have a "chicken egg problem".. If big browsers don´t support webp, it will never get popular..Spacefishhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13586568359146195305noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1386948037384435441.post-57829148010710998402011-11-18T12:58:22.082-08:002011-11-18T12:58:22.082-08:00Hey Jeff, after http://blog.chromium.org/2011/11/l...Hey Jeff, after http://blog.chromium.org/2011/11/lossless-and-transparency-encoding-in.html announcing that WebP has gained support for ICC, animation, and alpha transparency in both lossless and lossy modes, I'd love for you to write a new blog post with your opinions on the state of the format, whether you think it's more compelling, and what comments if any Mozilla has on the progress so far.Peter Kastinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04331294514379362250noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1386948037384435441.post-78698904765438697942011-11-18T12:46:16.657-08:002011-11-18T12:46:16.657-08:00Looks like Google has addressed a lot of the forma...Looks like Google has addressed a lot of the format's missing features now (http://googlecode.blogspot.com/2011/11/lossless-and-transparency-encoding-in.html). I'd be interested in seeing what your thoughts are now that transparency, ICC profiles, XMP metadata have all been added to the format.Yerochttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09914724016367158051noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1386948037384435441.post-39293011213224900072011-08-26T00:50:28.174-07:002011-08-26T00:50:28.174-07:00Google Chrome already has slightly better HTML5 su...Google Chrome already has slightly better HTML5 support then Firefox. And statics already say Chrome is faster then Firefox (while I don't believe it, sometimes Firefox just feels faster then Chrome). If Firefox also is going to lack support for WebP. It really is going to use losers. I already twice chose Firefox above Chromium because sometimes Firefox *feels* faster. Plus it has a lot more addons then Chromium. If Chromium always felt faster then Firefox I might seriously leave Firefox and consider using Chromium!<br /><br />And what' s wrong with supporting a image format which hasn't proven itself yet? WebP is open source and Google has the reputation to release good tools, api' s and documentation. It shouldn't be that much work to add WebP support. It wouldn't cost you years of precious time to add support.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1386948037384435441.post-22507569206095092072011-06-16T15:24:08.839-07:002011-06-16T15:24:08.839-07:00@Yoav
I definitely agree that we need a better ima...@Yoav<br />I definitely agree that we need a better image format. I just want to make sure that WebP is better at enough things to justify adding it to the web platform.Jeff Muizelaarhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17483047845050494642noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1386948037384435441.post-8124478058417227262011-05-26T14:26:53.736-07:002011-05-26T14:26:53.736-07:00You can apparently do some more black magic with p...You can apparently do some more black magic with progressive mode and mucking around with the huffman encoding to get another 5% size reduction with JPEG.<br /><br />This seems somewhere between undocumented and witchcraft however:<br /><br />http://doom10.org/index.php?topic=711.5Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1386948037384435441.post-15531192283562286152011-05-26T11:47:20.373-07:002011-05-26T11:47:20.373-07:00"Even if WebP was a clear winner in compressi..."Even if WebP was a clear winner in compression, large image hosts don't seem to care that much about image size."<br /><br />Image hosts may not care, but users do care about download times, especially in low bandwidth situations.Mike Taylorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17239494508845233567noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1386948037384435441.post-11922270036422348722011-05-26T09:19:12.683-07:002011-05-26T09:19:12.683-07:00EXIF is a terrible way to annotate digital assets....EXIF is a terrible way to annotate digital assets. It should be killed and replaced with Flexible Extensible Digital Object Repository Architecture.Colonel Nikolaihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08580281432776550606noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1386948037384435441.post-34933577506997143282011-05-26T02:37:12.619-07:002011-05-26T02:37:12.619-07:00@Jeff
Regarding the sample image, the sequential e...@Jeff<br />Regarding the sample image, the sequential example contains ~20K of Profiles data that the progressive one does not. Other then that it does seem that progressive saves around 5% on that image.<br />I'd like to point out a study by Stoyan Stefanov (Then @Yahoo) http://www.yuiblog.com/blog/2008/12/05/imageopt-4/<br />This study shows a median 2.7% improvement resulting from use of progressive JPEGs on web images, and that larger image are more likely to be better compressed progressively, while smaller ones are better off as sequential JPEG.<br />All in all, while JPEGs can be better compressed by better encoders, progressive JPEG is not a silver bullet, and better encoders can also be used to improve WebP quality.<br />All in all, we need a better format, with modern compression techniques and with Alpha channel (to which the WebP team seem to be committed, even if it's currently not supported). While I agree that WebP is not feature complete and is still a work in progress, there's a big difference between saying "We may support it once it implements A,B,C" and saying "it lacks A,B,C so we don't support it".<br />Please reconsider.Yoav Weisshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15959300388639367427noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1386948037384435441.post-55714430195764764542011-05-25T22:56:13.823-07:002011-05-25T22:56:13.823-07:00Yoav Weiss:
The amount that progressive improves c...Yoav Weiss:<br />The amount that progressive improves compression varies. This random image from http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1288/4672968856_2d80fdef5e_b.jpg<br />goes from 414045 bytes to 372861 by using progressive: http://people.mozilla.com/~jmuizelaar/progressive.jpgJeff Muizelaarhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17483047845050494642noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1386948037384435441.post-76434781057718408382011-05-25T14:28:26.950-07:002011-05-25T14:28:26.950-07:00“If I use Chrome, Picasa and other sites will be f...“If I use Chrome, Picasa and other sites will be faster. If I use Firefox, they will be slower.”<br /><br />And that's why more and more are using Chrome instead of IE or Firefox.<br />http://marketshare.hitslink.com/browser-market-share.aspx?qprid=0<br /><br />If it's a great technical improvement to jpeg by now is not important to users, but if they can save a few seconds or pay less for the bandwith, that is important.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1386948037384435441.post-13092282280152958182011-05-25T10:31:28.641-07:002011-05-25T10:31:28.641-07:00Do you have any data to back up the claim that pro...Do you have any data to back up the claim that progressive JPEGs are 20% smaller? <br />AFAIK progressiveness (in and of itself) only makes JPEGs larger. Would love to be wrong though...Yoav Weisshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15959300388639367427noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1386948037384435441.post-22862349800038156272011-05-25T09:29:56.580-07:002011-05-25T09:29:56.580-07:00For many uses, your arguments don't matter. In...For many uses, your arguments don't matter. In fact, the examples of image sites you gave, especially facebook, could see a huge benefit from much smaller and (to the naked eye!) clearer images. As a photographer, I tend to be a purist, desiring image quality regardless of image size or clunk, but Facebook and a lot of other sites have needed a way to make much smaller without sacrificing their already shit quality. And on top of that, you might actually see these sites let you put up bigger, higher quality images, especially considering how little screen real estate is being used by the majority of people these days.<br />At the same time, rather than arguing against the format, wait until it's complete. Clearly, they are still putting work into it.<br />You make some good points, but for people who don't need to do anything but put a rectangular image up on a social networking site, this method could easily do what people require. There is nothing wrong with new standards when they are better. Are you that guy still standing up for copper too? Even though we know we are starting to push up against the wall of limitations? New isn't bad. If you can't even show a better alternative, or even comparable alternative, your entire post is pretty much moot.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1386948037384435441.post-67435866911415521832011-05-25T06:11:32.115-07:002011-05-25T06:11:32.115-07:00Comments above argue that WebP now is totally diff...Comments above argue that WebP now is totally different from WebP six months ago and any number of wanted features are totally being experimented with. Somehow I don't see how that helps the case that browsers should support WebP <i>right now</i>? What's so wrong with waiting to see if it settles into a decent and useful file format?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1386948037384435441.post-39789604088965009202011-05-25T02:24:12.793-07:002011-05-25T02:24:12.793-07:00You may want to consider using it just to keep you...You may want to consider using it just to keep your users. Mozilla users will end up converting to other browsers because of no support.Claytonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1386948037384435441.post-12861337065153307472011-05-24T18:50:38.006-07:002011-05-24T18:50:38.006-07:00So basically, the situation now is this:
If I use ...So basically, the situation now is this:<br />If I use Chrome, Picasa and other sites will be faster. If I use Firefox, they will be slower.<br /><br />That's going to be 99% of what most users care about. <br /><br />I could understand if the reason was that the format is proprietary, but since it's not, this seems like a disingenuous move. <br /><br />I think this is something that users should vote on.Shirubahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10503809755592576431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1386948037384435441.post-39463516831561690592011-05-24T16:40:46.427-07:002011-05-24T16:40:46.427-07:00Flickr and FB compress images higher than 75, sure...Flickr and FB compress images higher than 75, sure, but do I have to point out they *are* compressing...? If they didn't care about size they wouldn't compress at all.<br /><br />As for recompressing jpeg, that must be the idea Google has in mind. Sacrifice a little processing time to save bandwidth. Doesn't sound bad to me...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1386948037384435441.post-65983341550175035442011-05-24T15:52:48.316-07:002011-05-24T15:52:48.316-07:00Microsoft isn't apposed to WebM support and pl...Microsoft isn't apposed to WebM support and pledged to support VP8 in IE9.<br /><br />http://www.zdnet.com/blog/microsoft/microsoft-to-support-vp8-video-codec-with-internet-explorer-9-after-all/6264zbowlinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07439644551629312181noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1386948037384435441.post-91294671298386733482011-05-24T09:45:42.495-07:002011-05-24T09:45:42.495-07:00New study at:
http://code.google.com/speed/webp/d...New study at:<br /><br />http://code.google.com/speed/webp/docs/webp_study.html<br /><br />addressing most comments about methodology.<br /><br />skalskalhttp://code.google.com/speed/webpnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1386948037384435441.post-6195917444119134852011-05-24T08:40:38.909-07:002011-05-24T08:40:38.909-07:00Photography? Firefox it not very photography frien...Photography? Firefox it not very photography friendly anyway.<br /><br />For example, an issue about ICC v4 support has been floating around unresolved for more than 2 years:<br />https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=488800Tomasnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1386948037384435441.post-69570809043257993972011-05-21T01:56:34.471-07:002011-05-21T01:56:34.471-07:00At least the Chromium team thinks they are making ...At least the Chromium team thinks they are making <a href="http://blog.chromium.org/2011/05/webp-in-chrome-picasa-gmail-with-slew.html" rel="nofollow">good improvements</a> to the format.Lars Gunther (itpastorn)https://www.blogger.com/profile/11544012919049072827noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1386948037384435441.post-68054846946275323022011-05-12T07:56:04.402-07:002011-05-12T07:56:04.402-07:00Google appear to have announced a fairly major rev...Google appear to have announced a fairly major revision of WebP at Google's IO conference. There's no text online yet that I can find, but it's in this presentation video:<br /><br />http://youtu.be/30_AIEhar-I<br /><br />WebP stuff starts about 20 minutes in and the new version details slide is at the 30 minute mark.<br /><br />It apparently includes a long list of new features including lossless, alpha, metadata, animation, css-spriting support, tiling and 3D.<br /><br />They also talk about a new SSIM based update to their previous image quality testing report.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com