| |||||||||||||
WebP, a new image format for the Web (The Chromium Blog)WebP, a new image format for the Web (The Chromium Blog)Posted Oct 1, 2010 17:24 UTC (Fri) by dlapine (guest, #7358)In reply to: WebP, a new image format for the Web (The Chromium Blog) by varenet Parent article: WebP, a new image format for the Web (The Chromium Blog)
He's also just a bit oversensitive to visually perceptive differences on his sample photos.
At first glance, looking at both side by side, no noticeable difference. Then, by doing a tab switch on the browser, I began to notice some blurriness in colored areas, but only after close examination.
His other points about lack of functionality are more relevant.
(Log in to post comments)
WebP, a new image format for the Web (The Chromium Blog) Posted Oct 3, 2010 11:41 UTC (Sun) by ab (subscriber, #788) [Link]
Grass is hugely different in his frame from the movie taken with analogue camera.
WebP, a new image format for the Web (The Chromium Blog) Posted Oct 4, 2010 14:08 UTC (Mon) by fb (subscriber, #53265) [Link]
FWIW IMO the faces of the two first persons look a lot better at the vp8 image than at the x264.
WebP, a new image format for the Web (The Chromium Blog) Posted Oct 8, 2010 13:56 UTC (Fri) by job (guest, #670) [Link]
I believe the point here is not which format is the best performing, but it it does not compare favorably to JPEG. Even if it does for some material chances are that the differences are slight. It is simply not good enough to replace the old, well understood, well implemented, JPEG.
|
|||||||||||||