Google Blogoscoped


WebM for video, WebP for images

DPic [PersonRank 10]

Thursday, September 30, 2010
10 years ago16,806 views ...

Roger Browne [PersonRank 10]

10 years ago #

This will be popular with web designers who will be very keen to have a lossy image format that supports an alpha channel for variable transparency.

I would like to see some hard figures for perceived image quality versus file size. Google says this:

<<we randomly picked about 1,000,000 images from the web (mostly JPEGs and some PNGs and GIFs) and re-encoded them to WebP without perceptibly compromising visual quality. This resulted in an average 39% reduction in file size>>

...but that doesn't mean much. I could probably take a million existing JPEGs and re-compress them more aggressively (but still as JPEGs) without "perceptibly compromising" visual quality. At least, if visual quality is not rigorously measured but is just "handwaving".

Roger Browne [PersonRank 10]

10 years ago #

Here is Google's comparison gallery: ...

Some of the images look perceptibly different to me, even in the scaled-down form. For example, the NFL player's skin looks lighter in the WEBP version. But as Google appears to have started with pre-compressed JPEGs, the gallery comparisons are bogus anyway.

Although these images are licensed under Creative Commons Attribution, and Google provides a link back to some image search results at Wikipedia, Google doesn't have the courtesy to acknowledge the names of the creators of the pictures they used. That's just pathetic.

This thread is locked as it's old... but you can create a new thread in the forum. 

Forum home


Blog  |  Forum     more >> Archive | Feed | Google's blogs | About


This site unofficially covers Google™ and more with some rights reserved. Join our forum!