Google's new VP8-based image format could replace JPEG

[nsane.forums]

In an effort to speed up page loading, Google has introduced an experimental new image format called WebP. The format is intended to reduce the file size of lossy images without compromising the quality. Google's tests, which involved converting a million images, show that the format delivers an average reduction in file size of 39 percent.

To achieve this reduction, the WebP format relies on the advanced, still-image compression methods that the VP8 video codec uses to compress individual frames. Google has coupled these advanced compression techniques with a very slim container format. Due to its efficacy for compressing lossy images, WebP might someday replace JPEG as the standard format for photos and similar content on the Web.

"We applied the techniques from VP8 video intra frame coding to push the envelope in still image coding," wrote Google product manager Richard Rabbat in a post on the official Chromium blog. "We also adapted a very lightweight container based on RIFF. While this container format contributes a minimal overhead of only 20 bytes per image, it is extensible to allow authors to save meta-data they would like to store."

Google obtained the VP8 video codec last year when it acquired media technology company On2. Google later opened the source code of the standard VP8 implementation and introduced WebM, an open multimedia format for the Web that relies on VP8 and Ogg Vorbis. It was a significant milestone for open video on the Web, because it finally supplied a competitive, royalty-free format that is suitable for use in standards-based video implementations.

Google's experimental WebP project reflects the possibility of putting On2's technology to work in unexpected ways. Although the results of Google's tests are very promising, practical adoption of the format will have to wait until it is supported in browsers. Google has already produced a patch for WebKit and intends to support the format natively in future versions of its own Chrome Web browser.

Google has published a gallery of samples that compare WebP-encoded images next to equivalent JPEG images. Subjectively, they look good to my eye, but not everybody is impressed. Jason Garret-Glaser, a well-known x264 developer who is participating in an effort to produce an independent VP8 implementation for FFmpeg, contends that WebP falls flat compared to JPEG due to weaknesses in the VP8 encoder. He reiterated his previous complaint that the VP8 reference implementation emphasizes optimizations for PSNR instead of psychovisual factors, causing it to deliver lower quality than it could if it was designed better.

"Is Google nuts? I could understand the push for 'WebP' if it was better than JPEG," he wrote in a blog entry. "And sure, technically as a file format it is, and an encoder could be made for it that's better than JPEG. But note the word 'could'. Why announce it now when libvpx is still such an awful encoder? You'd have to be nuts to try to replace JPEG with this blurry mess as-is."

As Garret-Glaser also points out, previous attempts to displace the antiquated JPEG format with superior alternatives haven't gained much traction. It may take a long time for WebP to gain real-world support in the browser ecosystem. The potential advantages of more effective compression are compelling, however, when you consider the performance gains that it could bring for mobile Web browsing where bandwidth is still constrained.

View: Original Article

[DKT27]

Google pitches WebP photo format

Company unveils open-source photo format

Google has released developer tools for a new image format.

The company said that its WebP file format would offer improved performance while maintaining image quality.

Google said that files compressed with the new format would be as much as 39 per cent smaller than those compressed in the current JPEG photo format.According to Google product manager Richard Rabbat, the open-sourced format is an attempt to cut the size of "lossy" compressed images, reducing file sizes and data traffic loads for networks with slower connection speeds such as mobile broadband platforms.

"Most of the common image formats on the web today were established over a decade ago and are based on technology from around that time," Rabbat wrote in a blog posting.

"Some engineers at Google decided to figure out if there was a way to further compress lossy images like JPEG to make them load faster, while still preserving quality and resolution."

The company is currently offering developer tools to help developers add WebP support to their applications. The company also plans to introduce support for the format with the next version of its Chrome browser.

View: Original Article

[shought]

The new images do seem sharper and at the same time areas which are subject to noise in JPEGs stay smooth, I'd say an overall improvement.

[DKT27]

Nope. This is not like a switch from wav to mp3. It's like mp3 to AAC. AAC is advanced audio Coding which can beat mp3 most of the times and is a successor to mp3. Youtube and other places use them, but mp3 still remains the most commonly used/liked. Taking this into consideration, I don't see WebP format being adopted so fast. It maybe better, but jpg still remains a standard.

[HX1]

So how does this compare with JP2 embed code?

[Atasas]

headline

Google's new VP8-based image format could replace JPEG

could would should... never!

There are better formats already, the only better application is web based image hosting, the rest- down to hardware! and JPEG isn't bad format either!

Google is waisting time where is no real implication plausibility, I'd rather they would put more efforts in to Google Docs, to finally replace install requiring apps.

[toyo]

wav is lossless... no compression though. All my music software works preferably with wav. 

[HX1]

headline

Google's new VP8-based image format could replace JPEG

could would should... never!

There are better formats already, the only better application is web based image hosting, the rest- down to hardware! and JPEG isn't bad format either!

Google is waisting time where is no real implication plausibility, I'd rather they would put more efforts in to Google Docs, to finally replace install requiring apps.

I have to disagree here I mean without processes like these .. you would not have JPGs... I remember reading about some of the work that Microsoft did with its browser and its ability to process JPG.. or another format.. can't remember been a long time ago.. and they were met with some of the same...

I think its a great thing.. better formats higher quality and if its an improvement on size and rendering.. I am behind it... with support.. Would like to see how SVG rendering and HTML5 is going to work out and how this may play a vital role in that area.. or in relation to.. Interesting really.. The thing is what its going to take to add another filetype to everything including devices..

wav is lossless... no compression though. All my music software works preferably with wav.

True but try to get a big enough pipe to send it over the internet, the processing power to transcode it on the fly.. and do that for a few thousand people at a time... and lets not forget that other people have to be able to purchase larger pipes themselves.. just to be able to keep up with it.. plus the nature of the file itself..

Now using it on a system your right.. Like vinyl versus the tape.. or even CD... though things have come a long way there are differences..

AAC is usually the best for encoding before streaming.. as far as broadcasting is concerned.. though MP3 gives the best quality it can be up to ten times larger... ( though depending on the end user Codecs this can be the other way around and change/vary greatly ) in bandwidth... OGG a little better..than MP3... Sometimes it can be the encoding from the source.. and other elements ... and other times it can the client side as well...