Featured Articles

Nvidia Shield 2 shows up in AnTuTu

Nvidia Shield 2 shows up in AnTuTu

Nvidia’s original Shield console launched last summer to mixed reviews. It went on sale in the US and so far Nvidia…

More...
AMD CSO John Byrne talks ARM

AMD CSO John Byrne talks ARM

We had a chance to talk about AMD’s upcoming products with John Byrne, Chief Sales Officer, AMD. We covered a number…

More...
AMD Chief Sales Officer thinks GPU leadership is critical

AMD Chief Sales Officer thinks GPU leadership is critical

We had a chance to talk to John Byrne who spent the last two years as Senior Vice President and Chief…

More...
OpenPlus One $299 5.5-inch Full HD phone

OpenPlus One $299 5.5-inch Full HD phone

OnePlus is one of the few small companies that might disrupt the Android phone market, dominated by giant outfits like Samsung.…

More...
KFA2 GTX 780 Ti Hall Of Fame reviewed

KFA2 GTX 780 Ti Hall Of Fame reviewed

KFA2 gained a lot of overclocking experience with the GTX 780 Hall of Fame (HOF), which we had a chance to…

More...
Frontpage Slideshow | Copyright © 2006-2010 orks, a business unit of Nuevvo Webware Ltd.
Monday, 04 October 2010 08:36

Google might not have a JPG killer

Written by Nick Farell
google

Developers mock
Developers have been mocking Search engine outfit Google after it released an experimental new image format called WebP which it claims can reduce the file size of lossy images making the image look pants.

The format can shrink the file size by 39 percent by using the VP8 still-image compression codec. Because it is jolly good at compressing lossy images, Google hopes that WebP might someday replace JPEG as the standard format for photos, at least on the Web.

Google product manager Richard Rabbat wrote on the Chromium bog that the VP8 video intra frame coding managed to improve still image coding. All Google had to do was adapted a lightweight container based on RIFF to make it work. 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, he said.

Google bought the VP8 video codec last year when it acquired media technology company On2 and it later opened the source code. At the time it was hailed as a “significant milestone for open video on the Web”.

The weekend's announcement means that On2's technology can be used in unexpected ways. Google has already produced a patch for WebKit and wants to support the format natively in future versions of its own Chrome Web browser.

However not everyone likes the idea. Writing in his bog, http://x264dev.multimedia.cx/archives/541 Jason Garret-Glaser, a well-known x264 developer said that Google was trying to dump yet another image format on the world.

“It’s just a VP8 intra frame. There are some obvious practical problems with this new image format in comparison to JPEG; it doesn’t even support all of JPEG’s features, let alone many of the much-wanted features JPEG was missing lossless support,” he snarled.

“It only supports 4:2:0 chroma subsampling, while JPEG can handle 4:2:2 and 4:4:4. Google doesn’t seem interested in adding any of these features either,” continued to moan. He said that he could understand the push for 'WebP' if it was better than JPEG, and technically as a file format it is, and an encoder could be made for it that's better than JPEG.

Garret-Glaser said that at the moment libvpx is an awful encoder and Google will have to be nuts to expect punters to replace JPEG with this “blurry mess”.

Nick Farell

E-mail: This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
blog comments powered by Disqus

Comments  

 
0 #1 Calabros 2010-10-04 09:12
this guy historically hates Google
 
 
-9 #2 Naterm 2010-10-04 11:00
Farrell will spew out anything to trash his favorite targets. It's usually some tripe about Apple, but sometimes it's Google (unless it's about Android being better than iOS).

In this "article" he just repeated the critique of someone who obviously knows a lot more about imaging and added his own misspellings to it.

Yes, it's a blog, get over it.
 
 
-8 #3 thematrix606 2010-10-04 11:50
You call this an article?

"which it claims can reduce the file size of lossy images making the image look pants."

Honestly, make it readable for all the viewers you British &*(#&$. You're pants and a skirt.
 
 
+2 #4 canerpense 2010-10-04 15:50
@Jason Garret-Glaser

Who uses JPEG? BMP FTW!!!1110
 
 
+9 #5 hoohoo 2010-10-04 17:07
JPEG is an acronym for "Joint Photographic Experts Group". That group included computer people, photography people, neurologists and psychologists. They figured out what parts of the data in a 24 bit RGB representation of a photograph are most important to the human eye & brain. Then they designed a compression scheme that discards most of the data that is not so important. The result is a scheme that present

Google's thing does seem to have better compression, but it does not take into account how human perception works. There are a number of side by side comparisons on the web of the two formats that show how Google's scheme fails relative to JPEG in rendering photographic images.
 
 
+5 #6 Haberlandt 2010-10-04 17:55
What I don't like about jpg format is that it's lossy (80% quality) by default. You can set it to be lossless, but most people don't know about this so they just save their images using lossy jgp compression, which is the reason why there are a lot of crappy quality pictures out there.
 
 
+1 #7 thetruth 2010-10-06 13:08
Quoting canerpense:
@Jason Garret-Glaser

Who uses JPEG? BMP FTW!!!1110


No, dude... PNG is the way forward.
 
 
0 #8 LokiSaytr 2010-10-12 03:30
How does this compare to JPEG 2000, which compresses better that jpeg, and is capable of transparencies and lossless compression.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JPEG_2000
 

To be able to post comments please log-in with Disqus

 

Facebook activity

Latest Commented Articles

Recent Comments