tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-342295268741167565.post5671330627412079031..comments2024-02-04T09:42:01.747-05:00Comments on Because .com Wasn't Available: A Comprehensive Guide to WebPJonathan Kleinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14232876592080837327noreply@blogger.comBlogger20125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-342295268741167565.post-86116821885868570752013-03-05T20:33:47.261-05:002013-03-05T20:33:47.261-05:00Like opera turbo now google is implementing their ...Like opera turbo now google is implementing their compression tecnology in their proxys servers and converting images on the fly to webp using spdy4 protocol. This feature is availiable to android chrome beta users.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18174823047811087928noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-342295268741167565.post-56327081274119849962013-03-04T22:07:08.938-05:002013-03-04T22:07:08.938-05:00Thanks! SVG is an extremely interesting technolog...Thanks! SVG is an extremely interesting technology as well, and I think it deserves its own post, since it really occupies a separate space. You would never use vector graphics for photo quality imagery, for example. Vector graphics have also been around for quite some time, and as a result there is a ton of information about them available on the Web. I wanted to write this article about WebP since I felt like there wasn't a single place that you could go to get a holistic and unbiased overview. Jonathan Kleinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14232876592080837327noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-342295268741167565.post-61115089289193419452013-03-04T13:35:30.390-05:002013-03-04T13:35:30.390-05:00Great wrap up on this very interesting technology,...Great wrap up on this very interesting technology, just didn't know about it.<br /><br />Maybe it would balloon this article, but what about some comparison with SVG?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03884089851791731618noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-342295268741167565.post-89829006654774226882013-03-03T16:46:50.598-05:002013-03-03T16:46:50.598-05:00Note that reduced file size is not the only goodne...Note that reduced file size is not the only goodness that webp provide.<br /><br />WEbp unifies features from jpg/gif/png in one format.<br /><br />Also it provide apng/mng features too.<br /><br />There arent anothet format with all these features and we webdeveloppers need them.<br /><br />Mozilla is blocking the advance of the web like microsoft blocked with not suporting svg. <br /><br />This is my point of view...<br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18174823047811087928noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-342295268741167565.post-17302484255941588562013-03-03T10:15:36.497-05:002013-03-03T10:15:36.497-05:00I actually don't think this is what is blockin...I actually don't think this is what is blocking Firefox from supporting WebP. The engineers at Mozilla are aware of the studies that have been done, and know the stats about the file size improvement that WebP provides. I got some info from Jeff Muizelaar about this, and at this point it sounds like it's a question of whether or not WebP is good enough to justify the costs of supporting it. This is a valid point, a lot of ongoing effort will go into wide support of WebP, and browser vendors have to decide if it's worth backing WebP or waiting for something that provides a larger improvement over JPEG. It's a tough question, and there's no easy way to make this determination. Jonathan Kleinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14232876592080837327noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-342295268741167565.post-48250519701844470282013-03-03T06:05:39.740-05:002013-03-03T06:05:39.740-05:00Can I sugest one aditional info for you blog?
Ta...Can I sugest one aditional info for you blog? <br /><br />Take firefox patched with webp on windows and osx<br /><br />Get google webp page copy and google jpg page copy<br /><br />Benchmark it with bytes transfered on post and javascript time to check page rendering data. <br /><br />Submit the results to mozilla bug.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18174823047811087928noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-342295268741167565.post-17129755095285767882013-02-26T08:39:09.318-05:002013-02-26T08:39:09.318-05:00Google may put an option in android camera to save...Google may put an option in android camera to save in webp loseless mode with highest quality possible. This will make pictures with more quality than jpg in 0% compression because jpg introduce artifacts even in 0% compression mode.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18174823047811087928noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-342295268741167565.post-6464416880821125892013-02-26T07:54:55.496-05:002013-02-26T07:54:55.496-05:00pngmini.com (and similar tools like tinypng.org/) ...pngmini.com (and similar tools like tinypng.org/) introduce lossy techniques as a preprocessor step to the lossless PNG format.<br /><br />They're very handy if you're tuning a website and want to reduce the size of a heavily used image, but it's a bit of a stretch to say that using them is saving "properly" since it literally throws away data (and in the case of PNG8 limits you to 256 colors). You're possibly getting them mixed up with the tools that strip metadata and perform lossless optimisation of images like OptiPNG and similar.<br /><br />And of course, those same lossy techniques of reducing the number of colors can be applied to WebP lossless+alpha images, though you probably wouldn't want to because WebP already has "proper" lossy+alpha built into the format (and generally the only reason you'd lossily compress a PNG in this way rather than use a JPEG is to take advantage of the alpha channel that the latter lacks).<br /><br />I just noticed your link to a comparison against WebP used in exactly that way. It strikes me as more than a little misleading as it compares very lightly compressed webp files, originally created to benchmark against lossless techniques. It would seem logical that WebP could exceed the quality per bit of his tool as you reduce the quality of encoding (as well as providing more flexibility) or else we'd be using quantised 256-color PNGs instead of JPEGs everywhere on the web today.davehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12818596351896427249noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-342295268741167565.post-31036679492200060612013-02-25T22:36:47.948-05:002013-02-25T22:36:47.948-05:00Most real world studies are showing 25-35% improve...Most real world studies are showing 25-35% improvements, not 10-15%, but I understand the concern that it's still not enough. We should keep working to improve WebP, and if another image format came around that was a significant improvement over WebP, I'm sure that Google would back it.<br /><br />The post does go into the question of whether universal WebP support today would make things faster or slower - it largely depends on the browser (hardware accelerated or not) and the device. In aggregate it's hard to say, this is an area where we need more studies done. There are number of companies with a ton of real user performance data now, and I'm hoping that one of them will be able to publish a study that looks at the performance impact of WebP across many browsers/devices.Jonathan Kleinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14232876592080837327noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-342295268741167565.post-70200442259210989112013-02-25T22:25:04.772-05:002013-02-25T22:25:04.772-05:00I actually link to the Wikipedia page in the first...I actually link to the Wikipedia page in the first paragraph of the article, and I state that native application support is strong. Having WebP support in the native Android camera app would help, but we still need to have support in the browsers for WebP to work on the web. In addition, many of the improvements from WebP come when you start compressing images - you can get a smaller file size with the same or better quality as JPEG. When it comes to pictures on a phone, people typically want the highest quality possible. Then they can decide to downgrade it in the future when they publish the photo to different locations. Jonathan Kleinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14232876592080837327noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-342295268741167565.post-73954007716752121212013-02-25T22:04:59.625-05:002013-02-25T22:04:59.625-05:00"WebP decoding is about 1.4x slower than JPEG..."WebP decoding is about 1.4x slower than JPEG"<br /><br />I feel like this rather significant con is still not being properly addressed. <br /><br />Can WebP decrease relative filesizes enough to make up for that gap? I don't doubt that it could do so versus a 10KB 2 megapixel jpeg, but what about with "real" files? How would WebP fare against a medium quality Photoshop jpeg? If the whole world dumps jpeg for WebP tomorrow, would the experience of loading a web page move forward or backward? The post did make a mention about data caps, but how much can WebP *really* save versus jpeg, and can you really use the internet if your phone's battery is dead?<br /><br />Last week, I made a series of post on the Doom9 (video encoding/compression site) forums trying to quantify various image compressors's performance. Performance on the Kodak test set and a subset of the JPEG-XR test set was compared against Photoshop JPG's own performance using a recently updated and improved version of SSIM, IW-SSIM, from its original author. You can find the thread in the Gen. section of the forum, but here's the gist: http://i2.minus.com/iFUn98JTZnONA.png<br /><br />My own interpretation is that WebP's 10-15% improvement is not enough, and that JPEG's successor is not yet in sight, and that it won't come until the magical -50% at 0.5-1.0 bpp is achieved. That's also the practical standard for the video compression world, which is even MORE desperate for compressive gains.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14470333601021512788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-342295268741167565.post-43887171985275597962013-02-25T08:16:47.652-05:002013-02-25T08:16:47.652-05:00Actualy webp has strong support (see wekipedia we...Actualy webp has strong support (see wekipedia webp/ support). The only thing that webp needs to turns mainstrean is google implement it in android camera app in way that milions of mobile phones take their photos in webp.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18174823047811087928noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-342295268741167565.post-68937599678836004282013-02-22T15:23:01.467-05:002013-02-22T15:23:01.467-05:00JPEGmini actually produces noticable worse quality...JPEGmini actually produces noticable worse quality images, so basically it just recompresses images. This can be acceptable, but for me it compresses too much and makes images looking blurry and dirty.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-342295268741167565.post-64827347044431606572013-02-22T00:11:31.796-05:002013-02-22T00:11:31.796-05:00That reminds me when I first joined Yahoo! Frontpa...That reminds me when I first joined Yahoo! Frontpage team, I noticed several teams (editorial, ads, etc) were responsible for filling the content of different parts of the same page but the overall page performance wasn't good. Nobody wanted to assume responsibility for pushing non-optimized images so I ended up creating a tattle teller tool that ran smush.it daily on every single image found on the page summarizing the missed % savings reporting which team, according to where on page the image was found, was responsible for such performance regression, notifying the team with environmental/sustainability appealed messages :-)Marcel Duranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17978361656834513065noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-342295268741167565.post-16584279790976637552013-02-21T19:49:30.212-05:002013-02-21T19:49:30.212-05:00What's great about this post is that it moves ...What's great about this post is that it moves from performance optimization to sustainability. We see this in other areas of design (e.g. industrial design and architecture) but until now the "sustainable web" has just been about local efficiency. Considering the value of a new efficient image format in the context of the larger internet ecosystem is pure sustainability thinking!pindiespacehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02890249944815748154noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-342295268741167565.post-2844297429306275752013-02-21T12:31:09.601-05:002013-02-21T12:31:09.601-05:00Great post! Thanks!Great post! Thanks!Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05954594464951890875noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-342295268741167565.post-74939753797758282762013-02-21T10:11:43.408-05:002013-02-21T10:11:43.408-05:00I agree, and Joshua Bixby just posted on his blog ...I agree, and Joshua Bixby just posted on his blog about this exact topic:<br /><br />http://www.webperformancetoday.com/2013/02/20/image-optimization/<br /><br />There's a lot of opportunity with existing formats, and we can do even better with something new, once we solve the problems mentioned in the post. Jonathan Kleinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14232876592080837327noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-342295268741167565.post-57083472575850114042013-02-21T10:09:46.019-05:002013-02-21T10:09:46.019-05:00This is a great point, throttling could exacerbate...This is a great point, throttling could exacerbate the decoding problem, and more CPU decoding time in theory should result in reduced battery life if no throttling is taking place. Like you said, we definitely need more studies around this!Jonathan Kleinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14232876592080837327noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-342295268741167565.post-487916297080193512013-02-21T06:57:22.131-05:002013-02-21T06:57:22.131-05:00WebP is a big improvement, but we're not using...WebP is a big improvement, but we're not using existing formats to the fullest yet.<br /><br />For example transparent PNGs from Photoshop's "Save for Web" are usually *4 times larger* than they could be if they were saved properly!<br /><br />http://pngmini.com/<br /><br />and well-generated PNGs have reasonable size compared to WebP:<br /><br />http://pngmini.com/vs-webp/<br /><br />Same goes for JPEG. Most software uses 19 year-old libjpeg! JPEGMini has shown that the same format, but with modern encoder, can achive much better compression:<br /><br />http://jpegmini.com/<br /><br />Even old tools with more CPU time can reduce file sizes significantly:<br /><br />http://imageoptim.com/<br /><br />So at least before throwing old formats away use them to their full potential.<br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-342295268741167565.post-22900226308012093072013-02-21T03:27:33.723-05:002013-02-21T03:27:33.723-05:00Excellent post Jonathan! I don't have any deep...Excellent post Jonathan! I don't have any deep studies on WebP to share, however the only time I covered WebP was back in 2011 Performance Calendar (http://calendar.perfplanet.com/2011/pure-css3-images-hmm-maybe-later/) when I compared several image formats to a CSS3 one. Besides load time I also compared rendering times and all binary image formats performed pretty much the same. Back then WebP was by far the smallest in size but it's correspondent data uri version ended up 2.7% larger whereas png and jpeg data uri were around 1.5% larger. It doesn't tell much since it wasn't an adequate sample but you can notice the rendering performance of WebP as data uri was the worst among the other binary formats.<br />One thing that just occurred to my mind is regarding CPU/GPU usage and battery life. If WebP is smaller thus faster to load on bandwidth constraint networks like carrier networks but slower to render (TTG) due to increased CPU/GPU usage, I wonder what's the average battery autonomy of smartphones if one is browsing photo albums apps like Flickr. With CPU throttling to save battery life it might take even longer to render WebP images. This is just my initial guess, unfortunately I have no tests nor numbers to support that. <br />I hope to see more data-driven studies around WebP performance and looking forward for major browsers adoption.Marcel Duranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17978361656834513065noreply@blogger.com