Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Google Upgrades WebP To Challenge PNG Image Format

Posted by Soulskill on from the more-cat-pictures-per-gigabyte dept.

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."

14 of 249 comments (clear)

  1. NIH by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Why not update the png format? See subject.

    1. Re:NIH by retech · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Because that requires a committee and would take 10x as long, if ever, to get done.

    2. Re:NIH by Trillan · · Score: 2, 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.

    3. Re:NIH by BitZtream · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You don't have to pay for a JPEG license, try again.

      --
      Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
    4. Re:NIH by BitZtream · · Score: 1, Insightful

      As opposed to PNG and JPEG which are both open and have no patent or license issues either?

      --
      Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
    5. Re:NIH by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

    6. Re:NIH by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If it truly is a significant innovation, it should sail through the standards approval process

      Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaaaaaaa

      Wow, you've never actually dealt with a standards body before, have you?

    7. Re:NIH by Anonymous Coward · · 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

    8. Re:NIH by Kjella · · 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.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    9. Re:NIH by timeOday · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Why not update the png format?

      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.

    10. Re:NIH by Kickasso · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It's OK, nobody uses JPEG 2000 anyway.

  2. Awesome by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

  3. Re:is his really necessary for tomorrows internet? by Hatta · · Score: 3, 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.

    --
    Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
  4. Re:are image standards too established? by Sloppy · · 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.

    --
    As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.