Yet Another Image Format: Google's "WebP"

[Frenzie]

Yes, I take pictures too, and I love my EXIF metadata (although the specifications are rather vague, but at least I love exiv2), but my point is that you might as well make the same arguments to strip PNG support. I've never seen WebP as a replacement for JPEG in that sense and the deficiencies are so glaringly obvious that it really all boils down to one argument: a true replacement for JPEG should exceed JPEG in all cases where JPEG is used, and WebP doesn't even come close. I don't think anyone would disagree with that, but the difference seems to be that I think of it only as a possible replacement for JPEG (and, in some instances, PNG) on the web, whereas the alternative interpretation doesn't only lose the emphasis on the last part, but simply forgets about it completely. Outside the context of the web I don't see the purpose of WebM either: instead I'd use a real Matroska container with Vorbis (or FLAC) and possibly even VP8, but not the small subset of Matroska provided by the WebM container. As such what I'd find convincing would be arguments for why WebP isn't that much better on the web than JPEG anyway and arguments for why I'd exclusively want support for a "real" image format on the web.

Also, is there any major picture host out there that even preserves the metadata on the smaller files it generates from the originals? Last I checked it was only displayed in HTML on Flickr and Smugmug, so there'd be no difference in that regard. I guess you could say they're already behind the times.

To summarize the above, the many ways left to optimize JPEG performance is the kind of thing that convinces me that WebP is probably not necessary. Why implement WebP if you can improve JPEG on the web dramatically? On that note, JPEG XR seems to perform horribly.

[RNiK]

I agree that right now there are good reasons for NOT IMPLEMENTING WebP in Firefox ("JPEG optimization", "the whole Microsoft/Apple VS Google thing"), but I would had preferred the bug remained NEW. The JPEG2000 bug has been NEW for many years, until it was clear that its implementation isn't worth the effort.

[Omega X]

WebP is open source, why doesn't everyone just post patches for what they want?

Roc mentioned that they're busy with the Opus audio codec. Which by the way is extremely promising for VoIP (and even audio files if the codec can be tweaked properly). It beats other audio codecs easily in low bitrates.

[Virtual_ManPL]

Too bad...

Opera already using it in Turbo...
http://my.opera.com/chooseopera/blog/on ... the-rescue

[patrickjdempsey]

Yeah but Opera Turbo isn't really the same as normally rendering web content... they are converting JPG's to WebP to compress the page before sending it. It does appear to make a good replacement for super compressed JPG's in their sample. Since they are doing it all internally, Opera can have their WebP compression calibrated specifically to avoid problems that might be encountered in a "wild" real-world use case. FWIW, AOL used to do something similar and for years I had to deal with friends unhappy with seeing all of their web pages in super low resolution or dithered with colors completely off (for GIFs)... I'm betting Opera users have had similar complaints using Turbo as well.

[Gingerbread Man]

AOL used to do something similar [...]
I'm betting Opera users have had similar complaints using Turbo as well.

Oh no you didn't. You did not just compare Opera with AOL.

Opera Turbo is a free service that speeds up browsing on slow connections. In the best case, it will make a dial-up connection more nearly resemble a broadband line. In cases where the connection speed is variable or in doubt, an automatic setting permits Opera itself to decide if Opera Turbo can be beneficial, and to act accordingly.

— help.opera.com/Windows/11.10/en/turbo.html

In other words, it's safe to use even for those who enable options without knowing what they do.

[Virtual_ManPL]

But still WebP have smaller size with the same visible image quality, so it's perfect for mobile

[Frenzie]

I'm betting Opera users have had similar complaints using Turbo as well.

It's something you have to use consciously. As far as I'm concerned on limited (i.e. primarily mobile) connections there's pretty much a choice only between Links/Lynx and the like and Opera Turbo (whether with or without images). But have you actually tried a post-Turbo release of Opera to see what it works like in practice?

Anyway, WebP is certainly doing a good job in Opera Turbo, that's for sure.

[patrickjdempsey]

Haven't tried any of the newer Opera builds... I did try 10 out for about an hour and quickly removed it from my machine after getting that "Opera" after taste in my mouth again. Some things just rub me completely the wrong way like that.

[Frenzie]

I dislike a fair amount of the default settings, but that's mostly the exact same kind of stuff I dislike about the defaults of Chromium and Firefox (but Opera and Firefox can be better while Chromium can't).

[patrickjdempsey]

Fair enough... Firefox 4.0 right out of the box pretty much offends me in every way. Sigh.

[hajj_3]

now that a newer version of webp was released last month with support for icc profiles, metadata and transparency will mozilla be bundling webp with firefox?

They also added lossless support which is supposed to be 28-45% better at compression than .png.

They said they haven't optimised it for speed yet.

I'm hoping that once google release the speed optimised version that mozilla then add it into firefox. Chrome and Opera already have support, there will just be IE and safari that won't have it.