Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

Google Makes WebP in Effort to Make JPEG Extinct

Tags:
Last response: in News comments
Share
October 3, 2010 5:40:28 PM

Awesome, looking forward to 2025 when this will actually become a standard
Score
24
October 3, 2010 5:41:49 PM

wasn't *.PNG the new web image format that was supposed to kill off JPEG? like 8 years ago lol
Score
-4
Related resources
October 3, 2010 5:59:20 PM

jamesedgeuk2000wasn't *.PNG the new web image format that was supposed to kill off JPEG? like 8 years ago lol

PNG was designed to replace GIF images, not JPEG. And for the most part I think it has succeeded, although it is hard to tell.

Well I'm all for a new/better standard. But Google has quite the fight ahead of them if they even want to become standard.
But then again, I'd never thought HTML5 would replace Flash when they first announced it, but now its looking like HTML5 has enough momentum to prove my former self wrong in the next 5 years or so.
Score
20
October 3, 2010 6:01:53 PM

jamesedgeuk2000wasn't *.PNG the new web image format that was supposed to kill off JPEG? like 8 years ago lol

Since you obviously have no idea what are you talking about, here are some facts:
- PNG was created to replace GIF.
- PNG is not 8 years old, first release was in 1996.
- PNG is a LOSSLESS format.
Score
20
October 3, 2010 6:07:59 PM

I had a hard time telling the difference in the comparison shots, and ~30% less bandwith is pretty huge. Go Google and their constant innovation!
Score
1
October 3, 2010 6:23:26 PM

Get rid of the adverts and bloated flash crap and pages will load 1000% faster.
Score
27
October 3, 2010 6:29:38 PM

Good luck getting the billion or so products that would need updates to support this format.
killerclickAwesome, looking forward to 2025 when this will actually become a standard

Haha if we are lucky full support across the board will arrive by then. Then maybe by 2030 websites will feel good enough to start using that format.
Score
-7
October 3, 2010 6:35:14 PM

I think it'll be after 2025 when this standard takes effect...
Score
-8
October 3, 2010 6:37:35 PM

killerclickAwesome, looking forward to 2025 when this will actually become a standard

Yeah, seriously. lol By then, no one will care since everyone will have internet connections that are 10 times as fast. Not only do developers have to support the new standard, so also would web browsers. It would take 15 years alone for everyone (stupid IE6 users!) to finally download and install a browser that could decode the image. :) 
Score
-7
October 3, 2010 6:37:43 PM

The problem here is that they applied a lossy codec to an image that was already converted into a lossy codec not including the png images.
Score
7
October 3, 2010 6:39:49 PM

Quote:
Get rid of the adverts and bloated flash crap and pages will load 1000% faster.

It's called Adblock plus... use it...

As for googles images, I'm all down for it. another image type won't hurt...
Score
5
October 3, 2010 6:44:26 PM

i don't think this will revolutionize the way we surf the web, but all improvements are welcome
Score
5
October 3, 2010 7:04:23 PM

Im all for improvement but can we trust google, every WebP image may be spying on us
http://www.engadget.com/2010/09/30/study-select-android...
as for the comparison samples, how can anyone tell the difference at a postage stamp size + current browses are not able to view WebP images so they must all be jpg's, its like seeing how a 3D tv looks through a normal tv !!!
Score
4
October 3, 2010 7:06:04 PM

Given that it's google there is likely some clause in license that gives them control over the image contents to better sell search results.
Score
2
October 3, 2010 7:26:43 PM

I hope it supports good transparency otherwise its not going to manage to replace most web images, if it does it will be very handy to use.
Score
1
October 3, 2010 7:31:53 PM

Sorry Google thanks.... but NO thanks

I take pictures on both JPG and RAW (and yea RAW files are huge) but the image quality is way better than JPG.

This is like saying that a .KAR is the same quality than a .MWAV they are not.

Another example is trying to compare a 480i signal to 1080P sure a 480i file will be smaller but nowhere as good.
Score
-7
October 3, 2010 7:45:13 PM

Of all those sample images, I was only able to spot a small difference in one of those images. I'm liking this already!
Score
0
Anonymous
October 3, 2010 7:52:40 PM

Whatever happened to JPEG2000? We don't need another format, we just need people to use the ones already out there. But it's always hard to supplant the first to cross the line. MP3 is hardly the best codec out there for music anymore, but it's about the only format guaranteed to work everywhere. Without browsers other than Chrome supporting WebP, it too will go by the wayside.
Score
4
October 3, 2010 8:11:05 PM

gmarsackYeah, seriously. lol By then, no one will care since everyone will have internet connections that are 10 times as fast. Not only do developers have to support the new standard, so also would web browsers. It would take 15 years alone for everyone (stupid IE6 users!) to finally download and install a browser that could decode the image.


[rant]You think the world resolves around you and that every one has the same internet speed as you. Stop and think for once. The internet is not just for you and the image formats are not deisgn just for those that are fortunate enought to have cheap 5+ mb internet speed. Open your eyes to the rest of the world who have an basic internte. For, this advances are a bless[/rant]
Score
1
October 3, 2010 8:15:21 PM

It's one thing to be smaller, but since it's a lossy technology, is the quality worse than JPEGs. Nothing in this article said it's the same quality, and smaller, just that it's smaller. Smaller and lower quality is easy.
Score
-2
October 3, 2010 8:25:58 PM

There were image formates better than JPEG already, such as JPEG2000. It's not easy to make people to changes though.
Score
6
October 3, 2010 8:48:06 PM

ta152hIt's one thing to be smaller, but since it's a lossy technology, is the quality worse than JPEGs. Nothing in this article said it's the same quality, and smaller, just that it's smaller. Smaller and lower quality is easy.
JPEG is a lossy format too - and its not as good. If you're encoding them both from the same source: WebP can look as good at a smaller size, or look better at the same size, or even both to some extent (small boost in quality AND size) depending on how they're compressed.
jbowman90Whatever happened to JPEG2000? We don't need another format, we just need people to use the ones already out there.
mianmianThere were image formates better than JPEG already, such as JPEG2000.
Yeah, people criticize MS for doing this sort of thing but Google is just as bad. They'll gladly ignore existing formats and design and market a new format that they control. I would have been happy to see major companies like Google embrace JPEG2000 instead. Maybe even extend it (JPEG2010?) and make it backwards compatible with JPEG2000.
Score
5
October 3, 2010 10:12:48 PM

I can make out the AY on the rail station sign much better with the WebP compression; and it is almost 40% smaller. Win Win. Go Google.
Score
0
October 3, 2010 10:51:27 PM

how long it will take to have this new format supported by the HTML editors and other development platforms?
as well as browsers... not sure if the Apple & Microsoft browsers will support it tomorrow...
but its a good news to see new format and better compression.
Score
0
Anonymous
October 4, 2010 12:10:14 AM

What about Jpeg2000?
Score
2
October 4, 2010 2:00:54 AM

stm1185I can make out the AY on the rail station sign much better with the WebP compression; and it is almost 40% smaller. Win Win. Go Google.


Go Google until we find that any WebP based image also collects data and send sit to Google to know what to advertise to you......
Score
-3
October 4, 2010 2:31:56 AM

pretty good tech.
Score
0
October 4, 2010 2:45:37 AM

jimmysmittyGo Google until we find that any WebP based image also collects data and send sit to Google to know what to advertise to you......


Hey if they can fit that into a 40% smaller file, all props to them.
Score
3
October 4, 2010 5:20:14 AM

ta152hIt's one thing to be smaller, but since it's a lossy technology, is the quality worse than JPEGs. Nothing in this article said it's the same quality, and smaller, just that it's smaller. Smaller and lower quality is easy.


HAHA Okay, lets consider the advances in internet in the last 15 years to what's to come...

http://www.cedarville.edu/Offices/Computer-Services/Int...

This chart isn't even up to date, any yet.. say, internet speeds are up 1500%. Who knew.. One can only imagine how speeds will be 15 years from now.
Score
0
October 4, 2010 5:45:27 AM

gmarsack said:
HAHA Okay, lets consider the advances in internet in the last 15 years to what's to come...

http://www.cedarville.edu/Offices/Computer-Services/Int...

This chart isn't even up to date, any yet.. say, internet speeds are up 1500%. Who knew.. One can only imagine how speeds will be 15 years from now.

Have you seen how fast mobile internet is? Have you seen how small the data caps often are?

Also, did you know that many people still use dialup?
Score
0
October 4, 2010 6:01:52 AM

ispamSince you obviously have no idea what are you talking about, here are some facts:- PNG was created to replace GIF.- PNG is not 8 years old, first release was in 1996.- PNG is a LOSSLESS format.


That .GIF format also had a 216 color limit (remaining bits to 255 are black) + rough-at-best alpha blending. This made adding features like a drop-shadow next to impossible, as GIF was reduced to dithering at that point.

The 32-bit PNG (not the 24-bit PNG) color-corrected the problem of transparent GIFs.


Anyone here remember CompuServe?
Score
1
October 4, 2010 6:15:23 AM

except when I download the comparisons not only are they small, but they are JPEGs vs PNGs, not the new format.
Score
0
October 4, 2010 7:02:47 AM

Gin Fushicho said:
except when I download the comparisons not only are they small, but they are JPEGs vs PNGs, not the new format.

If they showed you a "true" comparison you'd only see the JPEG. Since PNG is lossless it means the image would look the same as WebP. Check the link in my previous post for comparisons with larger images.
Score
0
October 4, 2010 9:42:26 AM

Nice hearing news about new technologies, but have in mind that WebP requires significantly power processing (or GPU) power. You must have at least a quad-core PC or a GPU-accelerated codec in order to have the same web-surfing speed/quality as JPEG.

Bottom line, all those P3,P4 PCs that work just fine atm as web-surfing pachines, will suffer hard, if WebP becomes the new standard.

But I guess, that's what evolution is all about..
Score
-4
October 4, 2010 11:21:20 AM

teodorehNice hearing news about new technologies, but have in mind that WebP requires significantly power processing (or GPU) power. You must have at least a quad-core PC or a GPU-accelerated codec in order to have the same web-surfing speed/quality as JPEG. Bottom line, all those P3,P4 PCs that work just fine atm as web-surfing pachines, will suffer hard, if WebP becomes the new standard. But I guess, that's what evolution is all about..

WTH, your commentary doesn't make any sense??? We're not talking about a video here. We're talking about an image. If there are differences in the time that takes to decode both formats it will be marginal at best. Also I don't know any image format that has a GPU assisted decoding. Also I failt to see why would we need a quad core to decode a single image when a dual core can decode a 1080p webm movie without the assistance of the GPU, and in this scenario the CPU has to decode at least 24 images per second, unlike a single image.
Score
2
October 4, 2010 11:54:07 AM

graham_71Im all for improvement but can we trust google, every WebP image may be spying on ushttp://www.engadget.com/2010/09/30 [...] tificatio/as for the comparison samples, how can anyone tell the difference at a postage stamp size + current browses are not able to view WebP images so they must all be jpg's, its like seeing how a 3D tv looks through a normal tv !!!

If you pay attention, for the first image, it's a 12KB JPG, the second is a 60KB PNG. Google converted it to WebP, and give us a preview in a high quality PNG file (which is 100% the same as the original, just larger).
So, no. Google did it right.
randomizerIf you want a real comparison, check out here: http://englishhard.com/2010/10/01/ [...] ersus-jpg/

Thank you very much for that link.
Score
0
October 4, 2010 12:10:37 PM

They look pretty close but I can tell a difference. The colors in the WebP images look a little cleaner and more vibrant, perhaps unnaturally so. If you look at the first Muralizer image you can see what im talking about if you look at the red in the left tower of the mural.
Score
0
October 4, 2010 12:50:37 PM

I can understand the need to reduce sizes if internet speeds are not increasing and hard drives are static in size.
However...
In the last 6 years I have gone from a 2Mb ADSL to a 24Mb ADSL, from a 250Gb HDD to a 2Tb HDD.
And...
Costs for both have plummeted.
So...
Do we really need this? Sure every little helps but it looks as if it is mainly for Googles benefit to reduce their bandwidth rather than our benefit as consumers.
Score
0
October 4, 2010 1:46:10 PM

Yay. Another image format. That is what we need. Cue the new revolutionary formats from MS (now with DRM :) ), Apple (now with DRM :) ) and about fifty offshoots of WebP because it doesn't work the way someone wants it too. The worst part is that browser vendors will have to begin supporting all of these so they have another tick in the features box.
Score
1
October 4, 2010 2:07:21 PM

randomizerHave you seen how fast mobile internet is? Have you seen how small the data caps often are? Also, did you know that many people still use dialup?


I get 300 k/s over my mobile phone. 15 years from now, I'm not sure how this is going to be an issue.
Score
0
October 4, 2010 2:33:35 PM

back_by_demandI can understand the need to reduce sizes if internet speeds are not increasing and hard drives are static in size.However...In the last 6 years I have gone from a 2Mb ADSL to a 24Mb ADSL, from a 250Gb HDD to a 2Tb HDD.And...Costs for both have plummeted.So...Do we really need this? Sure every little helps but it looks as if it is mainly for Googles benefit to reduce their bandwidth rather than our benefit as consumers.

Reducing the size of a file by a few kb won't have much effect on the client side, but it will have on server side. A server must send the images to every single person that visits the website. Reducing images even by a small fraction will have a big impact. There are also many website hosting companies that put limit on the traffic of every page hosted. If this traffic limit is reach usually the site is taken down and the owner must pay additional fees for the website to resume. Again a few kb on a single image can represent gb of traffic for an entire website.
Score
2
October 4, 2010 2:53:48 PM

Vladislauslooks as if it is mainly for Googles benefit to reduce their bandwidth rather than our benefit as consumers.

Score
1
October 4, 2010 2:55:17 PM

VladislausReducing the size of a file by a few kb won't have much effect on the client side, but it will have on server side. A server must send the images to every single person that visits the website. Reducing images even by a small fraction will have a big impact. There are also many website hosting companies that put limit on the traffic of every page hosted. If this traffic limit is reach usually the site is taken down and the owner must pay additional fees for the website to resume. Again a few kb on a single image can represent gb of traffic for an entire website.

Yeah, at the risk of repeating myself, seems as if this adds weight to it being less for the end user benefit.
Score
1
October 4, 2010 3:18:26 PM

The "Sample comparison images" are in PNG format instead of WebP
Score
-1
October 4, 2010 3:57:17 PM

what ever happened to all the wavelet compression products that was to replace JPG and I thought there was also some sort of fractal thing a couple of years back?
Score
0
October 4, 2010 4:11:18 PM

Less quality than Jpeg is basicly no quality.
They should just get us used to blurry images now.
Score
-1
October 4, 2010 5:09:18 PM

marracoThe "Sample comparison images" are in PNG format instead of WebP

That is because there isn't a browser out there that is capable of rendering WebP. So they were converted to PNG so that people can see it on their browser. Since PNG is lossless the result is exactly the same apart from the file size.
Score
1
!