On Saturday, October 25, 2014 7:31:16 PM UTC-7, Andreas Gal wrote: > The answer is D) WebP is simply not sufficiently better than JPEG to justify > implementing it. > > https://blog.mozilla.org/research/2013/10/17/studying-lossy-image-compression-efficiency/
Citing a year old article about a compression format that's under constant development? Having experimented extensively with WebP upon 100s of thousands of photos and images of varying types, WebP *IS* sufficiently better than JPEG to justify implementing it. On the whole, it averages about 1/2 the file size of JPEG with very little discernible changes (certain subtle things like shadows lose definition, but places of high contrast and detail remain very sharp). Also, and this is very important, higher resolution images tend to get considerably better compression ratio in WebP than JPEG. This is an advantage to it's variable compressed block size as high resolution images have bigger areas of color continuity. For instance, a 11-megapixel detailed photo of a sunset that takes 2 megabytes into a high-quality JPEG can compress to a 100 kilobyte WebP, and you'll have a hard time spotting the difference swapping between them. This means potentially countless millions of dollars in saving to Flickr and Google that store and serve up a lot of very high resolution imagery, not to mention convenience to people like me who sometimes have to suffer on low-bandwidth or metered connections. > > We have instead started a project to improve the efficiency of JPEG encoders: > > https://blog.mozilla.org/research/2014/07/15/mozilla-advances-jpeg-encoding-with-mozjpeg-2-0/ > > <https://blog.mozilla.org/research/2014/07/15/mozilla-advances-jpeg-encoding-with-mozjpeg-2-0/> No matter _how hard_ you work on improving the compression efficiency of JPEG, you're only going to yield maybe 5-10% efficiency where as WebP includes a very large number of compression parameters, and is an evolving format, so already achieves better than 50% acceptable compression (and again, vastly increasing with image size) over JPEG, but stands to get much better. I've been following this for over a year now and I've yet to see one credible technical reason for stating WebP is not ready for primetime. > With mozjpeg you can get the quality of WebP (and better) without a new > format. Actually no, you can't. This is simply a technical impossibility - and not the "never say never" kind - no, it's admirable to attempt but not an achievable goal. I'm done. Paul > > > On Oct 25, 2014, at 5:13 PM, [email protected] wrote: > > > > Well, my days of not using or recommending Firefox are certainly coming to > > a middle. ;) > > > > I was testing webp on my latest project and ended up on this forum after > > searching for whether or not Firefox supported it. > > > > After scrolling through that bug report and a these posting I'm left with > > these thoughts: > > A) Maybe the code for Firefox is such a mess that it's too hard to add > > support. > > B) Maybe the right person hasn't seen this feature request or just doesn't > > give a !#%$. > > C) This is the second thing I've posted on the internet today. Planets must > > be aligned funny. > > > > Guess I better code something to tell any Firefox users to go download > > Chrome. > > _______________________________________________ > > dev-media mailing list > > [email protected] > > https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-media _______________________________________________ dev-media mailing list [email protected] https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-media
