The WebPI, a compression format for images offered by Google, do not like. Unlike WebM - for its video - the WebPI is indeed under fire from critics and the person in charge of the integration of image formats in Firefox does not seem ready to integrate WebPI. The compressed images WebPI actually use the same technique as for the keyframes in a video stream WebM.
Remember that modern codecs use some images "complete" key frames, and other images are computed with respect to the latter. The WebPI has the advantage of producing images that take up less space than the same images in JPEG but there are some constraints. The first is that the technique used by Google to compare the quality of WebPI and JPEG is flawed, "quality" is indeed better for software testing, but the perception of users is not.
PSNR (Peak_signal-to-noise_ratio) indeed produces good results on some images in "blurring" the image so that users generally prefer a sharp image on the important points even though the backgrounds are of lesser quality. Other small defects, the metadata do not include things like color management and WebPI does not include management transparency.
Currently, only Chrome, and Opera support the WebPI and other major browsers should not include the short term. In fact, if WebM is interesting for its open side and its performance, WebPI has fewer benefits and is facing more competition as the universal JPEG, GIF, PNG, or even ... 
Remember that modern codecs use some images "complete" key frames, and other images are computed with respect to the latter. The WebPI has the advantage of producing images that take up less space than the same images in JPEG but there are some constraints. The first is that the technique used by Google to compare the quality of WebPI and JPEG is flawed, "quality" is indeed better for software testing, but the perception of users is not.
PSNR (Peak_signal-to-noise_ratio) indeed produces good results on some images in "blurring" the image so that users generally prefer a sharp image on the important points even though the backgrounds are of lesser quality. Other small defects, the metadata do not include things like color management and WebPI does not include management transparency.
Currently, only Chrome, and Opera support the WebPI and other major browsers should not include the short term. In fact, if WebM is interesting for its open side and its performance, WebPI has fewer benefits and is facing more competition as the universal JPEG, GIF, PNG, or even ...
- Mozilla Rejects WebP Image Format, Google Adds It (25/05/2011)
- Mozilla rejects WebP image format, Google adds it to Picasa (24/05/2011)
- Mozilla Expresses Wariness Toward Google's WebP Image Compression (25/05/2011)
- WebP, Google's answer to JPEG, gets better quality (25/05/2011)
- WebP, Google's answer to JPEG, gets better quality (25/05/2011)
No comments:
Post a Comment