Google Upgrades WebP To Challenge PNG Image Format 249
New submitter more writes with news that Google has added to its WebP image format the ability to losslessly compress images, and to do so with a substantial reduction in file size compared to the PNG format. Quoting:
"Our main focus for lossless mode has been in compression density and simplicity in decoding. On average, we get a 45% reduction in size when starting with PNGs found on the web, and a 28% reduction in size compared to PNGs that are re-compressed with pngcrush and pngout. Smaller images on the page mean faster page loads."
NIH (Score:3, Insightful)
Why not update the png format? See subject.
Re:NIH (Score:5, Insightful)
Awesome (Score:3, Insightful)
Another unsupported format from Google.
It's interesting how successful they are at dominating/directing so many areas of the Internet, but they seem so ineffectual in other areas like this and the video format they are trying to get the world to switch to.
Re:NIH (Score:3, Insightful)
WebP lossy may not catch on, but it isn't pointless. Compared to JPEG, in return for a muddier image (to my eyes, at least) you get alpha support. As Google is one of the biggest distributors of images on the Internet, I think the real purpose is to pay less for licensing JPEG.
WebP lossless seems much less useful to me. Unless there's licensing issues I'm not aware of, it seems pretty pointless.
Re:NIH (Score:5, Insightful)
You don't have to pay for a JPEG license, try again.
Re:NIH (Score:2, Insightful)
As opposed to PNG and JPEG which are both open and have no patent or license issues either?
Re:NIH (Score:4, Insightful)
TIFF exists. The world doesn't need another file format where most clients don't implement the full standard and the user can never expect a file in that format to be reliably readable everywhere.
Re:NIH (Score:3, Insightful)
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaaaaaaa
Wow, you've never actually dealt with a standards body before, have you?
Re:NIH (Score:5, Insightful)
But extensions are good for adding information, not removing it. You could probably implement whatever compression enhancements Google made to WebP in PNG through extensions, but probably not in a way that makes old versions of libpng still produce usable results while still having a reduced filesize. At which point it doesn't really matter if you add it to WebP or PNG, the backward compatibility benefit of PNG extensions can't be exploited either way
Re:NIH (Score:5, Insightful)
If it truly is a significant innovation, it should sail through the standards approval process as a recognized extension.
Which is not actually that helpful, because then you have tons of PNG-capable applications that can't read PNGs. TIFF used to be this way, where TIFF actually means it can be compressed like ten different ways and support was very mixed. If you have a significant new non-backwards compatible format, just releasing it as a new format is maybe just as easy.
Re:NIH (Score:5, Insightful)
Recycling a name for a new incompatible format is a terrible idea. If I have a png image and software that supports pngs, I should be able to read that image, period.
Re:NIH (Score:5, Insightful)
It's OK, nobody uses JPEG 2000 anyway.
Re:is his really necessary for tomorrows internet? (Score:4, Insightful)
CSS3 will soon eliminate the need for rounded corner images and gradient backgrounds
There never was any need for rounded corners and gradient backgrounds.
Re:are image standards too established? (Score:5, Insightful)
It doesn't have to unseat anything. Google is in the interesting position of having some websites with a significant amount of traffic and a web browser with a significant number of users. All they have to do is have Chrome send it in the Accept header and have their sites pay attention to that header. Instant n% reduction of bandwidth used by images.
Right there, technological progress can stop and Google still comes out ahead. (Ignoring what they've paid to people to come up with WebP.) No rival has to be unseated.
OTOH, once your site starts receiving a significant number of image/webp (or whatever they're using) in the Accept headers from Chrome (and Opera!) users, you have incentive to reconsider taking advantage, and the network effect has started, bouncing back'n'forth between site developers and browser developers.
JPEG2000 didn't go this way because of the patent issue; from the very get-go, everyone knew they weren't allowed to use it. With WebP, it's either a mystery (if you're cautious) or allowed (because you trust that Google did a good patent search). Unlike JPEG2000, nobody has stepped forth and shown for sure that the tech needs to be sequestered for a couple decades. The default assumption about its legality is different.