WebP, a new image format for the Web (The Chromium Blog) [LWN.net]

WebP, a new image format for the Web (The Chromium Blog)

Posted Oct 1, 2010 18:52 UTC (Fri) by cmccabe (guest, #60281)
In reply to: WebP, a new image format for the Web (The Chromium Blog) by gmaxwell
Parent article: WebP, a new image format for the Web (The Chromium Blog)

> And one without an efficiently coded alpha channel and scalability to
> lossless? I find it really hard to believe that something will be widely
> adopted unless it satisfies a broad set of needs otherwise we're left
> with JPEG being "good enough and widely compatible"

Why does it need to be lossless? PNG already provides lossless, for the small number of people who want that.

> As of right now it sounds to me like a somewhat myopic improvement which
> may only be attractive someone who already has a VP8 decoder, needs to
> squeeze down their bandwidth bills, doesn't care about all the other
> features lacking in JPEG, and controls both the server and the client.

This will directly cut Google's bandwidth bills. And they can roll it out instantly to millions of Android phones. It's an open standard and better than JPG, although maybe not as good as it would be if software patents didn't exist. The extra legal risk to Google is nil because it uses technology already present in VP8. I would think it would be obvious, but apparently it needs to be pointed out: when you see an opportunity to cut expenses with absolutely no risk-- you take it!

(Log in to post comments)

One format to encode them all

Posted Oct 1, 2010 23:58 UTC (Fri) by man_ls (subscriber, #15091) [Link]

PNG already provides lossless, for the small number of people who want that.

I assume you mean the "small number that want lossless photographs", not the huge number that want lossless icons. Having support for lossless pictures would be a great deal in digital photography, instead of a myriad of RAW formats.

But I suspect the point is rather to be able to approach lossless as much as you want. JPEG maxes out at a point where files are huge but artifacts are still there. Having no upward limit (but the 100% lossless point) might be quite useful. Not to speak about 16 or 32 bits per channel... the possibilities are huge.

Besides, if the format is cleverly coded, it might provide good support for lossless icons. Having just one format in a page might simplify some work flows.