Googles Jpeg replacement?

gibbon

gibbon

Messages
346
Name
Andy Gilbert
Edit My Images
Yes
Sorry if this is a double post but i only just read this whist surfing the news. Google has invented an image format that has better compression than jpeg yet is a cleaner ans shaper. Call Webp (apparently short for..."weppy")

http://blog.chromium.org/2010/09/webp-new-image-format-for-web.html

You can download the conversion tool and use, anyone tried it?

Thanks
Andy
 
Somehow it feels pretty pointless until they sort out the (lack of) colour management in Chrome. :suspect:
 
There was jpeg 2000, anybody remember that? that was supposed to be a replacement for jpeg, them microsoft had another (Windows Media Photo) that came and went. Why do people keep trying to re-invent the wheel.
 
They tout that the photos are smaller in file size but does that really matter? Jpegs are small enough as it is and web access is only getting faster!
 
Looks interesting. There really needs to be an update to JPEG, I doubt it will change though as people are too stuck in it.
 
menthel said:
Out of interest, why do you think jpeg needs to be updated?
Click to expand...
The last implementation of the JPEG standards was 1998, since then, the standard has stagnated and what was considered acceptable loss of quality back then, is no longer so.
 
Coldeh said:
The last implementation of the JPEG standards was 1998, since then, the standard has stagnated and what was considered acceptable loss of quality back then, is no longer so.
Click to expand...

I am not sure it will wash with the majority of users. Most are used to jpeg and will not see any real difference. I am not too sure that jpeg looks all that bad at a high quality, even now.
 
I thought PNG was supposed to be the coming thing...
 
menthel said:
I am not sure it will wash with the majority of users. Most are used to jpeg and will not see any real difference. I am not too sure that jpeg looks all that bad at a high quality, even now.
Click to expand...

But the highest quality doesn't give a great deal of compression, so the quality won't be too badly effected. When you go lower to save on filesize, quality can be dramatically effected.

zeugma said:
I thought PNG was supposed to be the coming thing...
Click to expand...
PNG is a lossless codec, JPEG is lossy. It's like comparing a potato to an apple.
 
Still, a high quality jpeg of a resized image is hardly huge and with net speeds only increasing I think, even if superior, any format is going to have trouble dislodging jpeg.
 
Coldeh said:
PNG is a lossless codec, JPEG is lossy. It's like comparing a potato to an apple.
Click to expand...

Unfortunate simile. Apple = Pomme, Potato = Pomme de Terre (Earth Apple).
Your point is taken, however :D
 
The low quality of small file-size jpgs is a good deterrent against photo theft off web sites. Improving jpg quality will only make it more common.

As for quality of high file size jpgs, take a TIFF and produce from it the best jpg. Compare the two. I doubt that there are many people, if any, who would be able to tell them apart.
 
menthel said:
Still, a high quality jpeg of a resized image is hardly huge and with net speeds only increasing I think, even if superior, any format is going to have trouble dislodging jpeg.
Click to expand...

when you're google, or facebook (there are something stupid like half a million photos uploaded to facebook PER SECOND) etc, file size will = a big cost to you for storage etc - this is why google will be after this :D
 
zeugma said:
Unfortunate simile. Apple = Pomme, Potato = Pomme de Terre (Earth Apple).
Your point is taken, however :D
Click to expand...

That was very clever!:)
 
swanseamale47 said:
There was jpeg 2000, anybody remember that? that was supposed to be a replacement for jpeg, them microsoft had another (Windows Media Photo) that came and went. Why do people keep trying to re-invent the wheel.
Click to expand...

I know what you mean but JPEG is hardly the wheel! lol I'm all for technology trying to advance and if something can be improved then I say go for it!

EDIT: It says they are planning to incorporate a transparency layer which is something I think JPEG really needs for the web as PNG and GIFS can hit some pretty high filesizes when there's a lot going on.
 
Last edited:
in the age of camera phones, blurry pictures and tiny pictures on facebook, I really doubt your average customer is concerned about the picture quality.

And anyone who is interested in quality will be working with raw or tiff anyways...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top