What does Sup Forums think about WebP ?

developers.google.com/speed/webp/
>uses predictive coding to encode an image, the same method used by the VP8 video codec

here some example images
koyaanis.com/webp/sfw/

on one image the filesize went down by 85%, see:
koyaanis.com/webp/sfw/compression 6 quality 90/519531.jpg
koyaanis.com/webp/sfw/compression 6 quality 90/519531.webp

Other urls found in this thread:

webpjs.appspot.com/
developers.google.com/speed/webp/
i.4cdn.org/g/1464179337366.png
antimatter15.com/wp/2010/10/weppy-javascript-shim-for-webp-on-chrome-6-and-firefox-4-0/
stackoverflow.com/questions/21484579/rgb-frame-encoding-ffmpeg-libav
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

In trash it goes. Use JPEG.

>convert image to webp(use predictive coding and other OP buzwords)
>convert webp to jpg
profit

why?

old news, we bpg and flif now

Because image format should not include own compressor in the first place. Read about farbfeld.

also
>Developed by Google

and they are known for being CIA nigger scums

>and they are known for being CIA nigger scums
then why is webm supported?

Webp is a joke, this

PS: regular webm can be used for images

you can actually use BPG in production right now using their javascript library.

there's absolutely no way to use webp in production

chrom(e|ium) supports webp

holy WEBM is blessed by a saint RMS spirit

It was initially developed by OK companies, and only after that Google tortoise maggots joined.

>webm can be used for images

Everything else doesn't, so derp.

Are you implying there are no polyfills for webp? Because that's entirely wrong.

webpjs.appspot.com/

sure. but that's not what you said

I said production, and you confirmed me by saying only one browser supports it.

>absolutely no way
>oh, except that one browser fucking everyone uses

...

>developers.google.com/speed/webp/
>How WebP Works
>Predictive coding uses the values in neighboring blocks of pixels to predict the values in a block, and then encodes only the difference.
Well, that is pretty much how any lossless audio/video/image compression works. They try to make a best guess by exploiting what we know about the data and then save the error.

I hoped they would explain what model they use to predict the image.

Video codecs usually incorporate a fully featured image codec (used for I-frames). h.265 is for example also an extremely efficient image codec. It's pretty simple to just tell the video codec to encode a single still image.

Part of my anime pictures collection is in webp. I save a few gigabytes thanks to it.

I also forgot to mention that this is 99% the same as an actual webp

are you actually serious right now?

>one browser

Once again you've confirmed my statement about it not being production ready.

A webp is that, except with the controls disabled/hidden. (Which can already be done with the tag)

I refuse to believe

Maybe a different frame rate helps.

Hit the pause button lol

...

what do you think production ready means?

Shit mate.. I could also use any other video codec, hevc for example and just hide the controls. But in the end its still a video and not an image

Works on the majority of browsers, Chrome isn't >50%.

Webm is a video in the end and not an animated gif

that's not what it means

It's one of the criteria of production-ready

>no firefox support

i know thats my point. i want image formats for images and video formats for videos

>Dat CPU spike.

This

There's no real difference, image codecs and video codecs have always been used interchangeably with the user not noticing a difference

>motion jpeg
>webp
>animated gif

If jpeg could just have transparency though

>lossy transparency

Thank god that never happened.

Don't forget the adventures of mozilla with apng.

That said: What's the current status on webm + transparency

gifs are a category of their own. also they are shit.
>motion jpeg
first time i heard of this
>webp
thats an image format

Is this a rebuttal attempt or you're just stating your ignorance?

There would be no point in having a "lossy" alpha channel, it wouldn't work properly.

There's no difference. Considering images are a subset of videos (with a single frame and no audio stream) it's weird to me that they are separate. I get that it's a good idea to keep the file extensions separate, but the codecs probably shouldn't be.

>Is this a rebuttal attempt or you're just stating your ignorance?
I just openened a webp as a webm. it didnt work. what else do i need to do?

you can already use webp and webm in any modern browsers.
if the formats are not supported you can use a fallback action.
for example.




Your browser does not support the video tag.

the browser will then either use the webm or mp4 video depending on what is supported.
assets will be loaded as necessary to boot.

the same works with the tag. this will load either the webp image or the gif/jpg/png or whatever. and only load the one that is necessary.

that's not true

>.webm -> video/mp4
>.mp4 -> video/ogg

nice shitposting

now try movie.webm type image/webp

The alpha channel is literally no different from the R, G or B channel. Compressing it works the exact same way.

i coppied the example from the MDN and forgot to edit hte second part
im so sorry for causing a fourth holocaust senpai.

Why this doesn't happen to me? Even if I click on Play it doesn't do anything at all.

Webp is the ultimate solution to jpeg(higher compression in lossy mode, transparency), png(higher compression in lossless mode) and gif(truecolor, better compression, open format). Why isn't it still used by default everywhere is beyond me.

it's not used everywhere because it's not supported everywhere
it's not supported everywhere because it's not used everywhere

Chrome based browsers support it(Chrome's data saving mode converts pictures from http sites to webp). Failfox quickly falls into oblivion. Safari shouldn't matter that much because then webm wouldn't be supported as well.

9% to 70% haha (Intel Pentium wolfdale)

It exists but last I saw it only works on chrome.

>it's not used everywhere because it's not supported everywhere
you mean the same way webm wasnt supported? just force it and itll happen within 2 days..

Firefox really doesn't like these, CPU spiked while it was open.

...

Here's one

In firefox the seekbar doesn't change at all, it's just stuck at the start.

But apparently pausing the "video" still works. If you press pause the CPU goes back to normal

its not a "video" its a video. seriously are you guys trolls?

huh

Not OP.
I (and a few others...) did test all those. Thoroughly.
bpg is worse in any standard test (performed on a standard set of images, ~800MB)
flif is a fucking joke. Sometimes it's better, sometimes it's worse, problem is that when it's worse, it's awfully worse.
webp and lossless webp perform best.

Also
>webm for images
Your ignorance is so blissfully elegant. Video and images use different colour spaces. That's why -lossy- webp had to be forked from vp8 (the code is anyway almost identical). Lossless webp in an unprecedented achievement and its sources are completely different.

s/Lossless webp in an/Lossless webp is an/

That is very easy to answer: Webp is way too high complexity compared to stuff like JPG or PNG. It's not like the only computers de and encoding images are some neckbeard's gaymen computers with an i7 in it. It's also used in very low performance devices. JPG is a completely sufficient tradeoff between computation time and quality, especially as storage is less and less of an issue.

It's a single frame, it's at least as much an image as it is a video. The fact that the web browser interprets it as a video and tries to loop it over and over again doesn't change that.

>Your ignorance is so blissfully elegant. Video and images use different colour spaces.
Care to elaborate?

>we'll still use mp3, jpg, pdf, png in 2050
Not the neckbeard you're arguing with; I'm not fighting these kind of sad truths. Something epochal* has to happen to help us getting rid of those legacies.
>storage is so cheap
>tradeoff
I'm not really convinced from those arguments


* I wouldn't be surprised if Apple or a company like Apple (see: a monopoly - Google? - ) finally shoves a new standard down everyone's throats. For greater good.

>It's a single frame, it's at least as much an image as it is a video
Do you know what a video is? Its when you have a file with the extension mp4/webm/avi/mkv etc and that is playable using a video player using codecs made for videos.
what you are looking at is a video, not a picture

Those formats are doing their jobs very satisfactory, and there's little reason to replace them. Less and less by the day. There is hardware produced that specifically takes care of those formats, there are server encoding PNGs all the time etc. Those things add up and in the end there is little momentum for a new format. It would ultimately cost more — a LOT more. There's zero economical interest.

How do you encode them?

It's just a matter of implementation. Videos are just sequences of images. It's not big deal to add a still image mode to video codecs.

A video is a series of images(referred to as frames) that are displayed in a manner that simulates movement. When there's only one frame in a video webp and webm are basically identical aside from the container formats, the difference is how the data is interpreted by software.

>Videos are just sequences of images.
[...] that were bound together in a video format and is meant to be played

>A video is a series of images(referred to as frames) that are displayed in a manner that simulates movement.
i cant believe you guys are actually trying to teach me what videos are. I know they are a bunch of images. but the difference is that
A.) images are usually of higher quality
B.) images are STILL, and not still as in "a paused video" but they are merely a completely static thing, which leads us to:
C.) they consume a lot less to no cpu power (see posts above when anons complained about cpu spikes in that "webm image"
D.) images and video file extensions are there so you can differentiate between them.. imagine if people started using webm as image extension. how would you tell the difference between videos and images ? You wouldnt, you cant.

>webp and webm are basically identical
says who? I havent looked through the source, of course, but i dont think you have either. I dont think they are identical in any way other than they use the same algorithm for compression

Isn't GIF lossy?

Converting to gif may be lossy but gif is considered a lossless format. Gif is lossless if an image has 256 colors or less.

>[...] that were bound together in a video format and is meant to be played
Information is meant to do shit. It's just a matter of interpretation by software.

>A.) images are usually of higher quality
Video codecs usually support everything from blocky shit to lossless. So, no worries.

>B.) images are STILL, and not still as in "a paused video" but they are merely a completely static thing, which leads us to:
So what? A video with a single frame is a still image. What is the exact problem? ALL Video codecs incorporate all capabilities to encode still images. The first video codecs where literally build around JPEG.

>C.) they consume a lot less to no cpu power (see posts above when anons complained about cpu spikes in that "webm image"
What makes you think that? That's just a wrong assumption.

>D.) images and video file extensions are there so you can differentiate between them.. imagine if people started using webm as image extension. how would you tell the difference between videos and images ? You wouldnt, you cant.
That is valid. But it's not really a problem. Just allow for two different file extension to differentiate between the two. So no problem.

> I dont think they are identical in any way other than they use the same algorithm for compression
They are literally the same shit just with a few different bits in the header you idiot.

GIF is lossless as long as the image is 8 bit. For higher depth images it is of course lossy. There are also lossy encoders available, but it's not a feature specified in the standard, but rather an exploit of how GIF encodes images.

$ wget i.4cdn.org/g/1464179337366.png -O OP_logo.png
$ ffprobe OP_logo.png
[...]
Stream #0:0: Video: png, rgba(pc), 182x219 [SAR 2835:2835 DAR 182:219], 25 tbr, 25 tbn, 25 tbc
$ cwebp OP_logo.png -o OP_logo.webp
[...]
Stream #0:0: Video: webp, yuva420p(tv, bt470bg/unknown/unknown), 182x219, 25 tbr, 25 tbn, 25 tbc
$ ffmpeg -i OP_logo.png -vcodec libvpx OP_logo_vp8.webm
$ ffprobe OP_logo_vp8.webm
[...]
Stream #0:0: Video: vp8, yuv420p, 182x219, SAR 1:1 DAR 182:219, 25 fps, 25 tbr, 1k tbn, 1k tbc (default)
$ ffmpeg -i OP_logo.png -vcodec libvpx-vp9 OP_logo_vp9.webm
$ ffprobe OP_logo_vp9.webm
[...]
Stream #0:0: Video: vp9 (Profile 1), gbrp(pc, gbr/unknown/unknown), 182x219, SAR 1:1 DAR 182:219, 25 fps, 25 tbr, 1k tbn, 1k tbc (default)
$ cwebp -lossless OP_logo.png -o OP_logo_lossless.webp
$ ffprobe OP_logo_lossless.webp
[...]
Stream #0:0: Video: webp, argb, 182x219, lossless, 25 tbr, 25 tbn, 25 tbc
$ bpgenc -lossless OP_logo.png OP_logo_lossless.bpg
$ flif -e OP_logo.png OP_logo.flif
$ stat -c '%s %n' OP_*
12810 OP_logo.flif
11978 OP_logo_lossless.webp
18382 OP_logo.png
8198 OP_logo_vp8.webm
7761 OP_logo_vp9.webm
5278 OP_logo.webp

in b4 >gif is an image and not a video

>B.) images are STILL, and not still as in "a paused video" but they are merely a completely static thing, which leads us to:
>C.) they consume a lot less to no cpu power (see posts above when anons complained about cpu spikes in that "webm image"
The reason why the video uses so much power is that it's being interpreted the wrong way. They would consume the same amount if they were being interpreted the same way. The browser doesn't view that file as an image which is what it is it sees it as a video and the way the vidoe is set up it's designed to loop when it finishes. The webm finishes immediately because it's just one frame so it tries to loop and it probably does this thousands of times a second which is why it's using so much CPU time. It actually doesn't have to use that much CPU though it's just being interpreted the wrong way.


>I dont think they are identical in any way other than they use the same algorithm for compression
"Webp" is just a VP8 I-frame. The primary difference between webp and a single frame vp8/webm video is the container and the file extension.

antimatter15.com/wp/2010/10/weppy-javascript-shim-for-webp-on-chrome-6-and-firefox-4-0/

>Videos are just sequences of images.
Video is never rgb.
stackoverflow.com/questions/21484579/rgb-frame-encoding-ffmpeg-libav

>Information is meant to do shit. It's just a matter of interpretation by software.
software cant interpret or think on its own.

>So what? A video with a single frame is a still image.
nope. an image is an image. a video is a video. try changing an image file test.jpg to test.avi. not gonna happen

>What makes you think that? That's just a wrong assumption.
Its a fact. I had the problem with my own computer and other anons did too in here.

>They are literally the same shit just with a few different bits in the header you idiot.
tell me how to change the header of an image file to make it viewable in a video player

Fuck gif. gif is stupid. it was removed from the internet

>The webm finishes immediately because it's just one frame so it tries to loop and it probably does this thousands of times a second which is why it's using so much CPU time. It actually doesn't have to use that much CPU though it's just being interpreted the wrong way.
But if you give it more than 1 frame then it becomes a series of images again thus a video.

>It would cost more
>economical interest in slowing down progress
sure, the same happens with e.g. the energy sector (we're actively slowly down the adoption of techs that could be more convenient if we switched to them en masse)
That's why I wrote that something "epochal" has to happen. Every now and then a revolution is needed to quit stagnation

oops, correction
$ bpgenc -lossless OP_logo.png -o OP_logo_lossless.bpg
$ stat -c '%s %n' OP_*
12810 OP_logo.flif
19954 OP_logo_lossless.bpg
11978 OP_logo_lossless.webp
18382 OP_logo.png
8198 OP_logo_vp8.webm
7761 OP_logo_vp9.webm
5278 OP_logo.webp
>what does this mean
in the lossless championship, bpg performs worse, flif performs better than png but worse than lossless webp.
in the lossy championship.... webp wins over vp8 and vp9. The conversion to vp8 and vp9 lost the alpha channel, retained in webp. In lossless webp, both rgb and alpha channel are preserved.

TL;DR
webp.

I found these to be the best for encoding webp's

$ cwebp -q 90 -m 6 -v INPUT.jpg -o OUTPUT.webp


-q can go up to 100 and -m to 6 (its the highest compression thus taking the longest time to encode)

lossy images usually neither. Shouldn't be too hard to implement it differently anyway.

>software cant interpret or think on its own.
Software is doing whatever we program it to do. If tell it to treat a video with a single frame like an image, it will do that.

>nope. an image is an image. a video is a video. try changing an image file test.jpg to test.avi. not gonna happen
Because it's not implemented that way. But you could with no disadvantages whatsoever.

>Its a fact. I had the problem with my own computer and other anons did too in here.
No it's not a fact. Video codecs are usually implemented extremely efficiently.

>tell me how to change the header of an image file to make it viewable in a video player
It is up to implementation. See everything people have written before in this thread. If you save a video with a single video stream and a single frame in it and introduce some flag in the header of the container that declares a still image, that would work without any problems whatsoever.

>But if you give it more than 1 frame then it becomes a series of images again thus a video.
Yeah but you just don't. I'm starting to think your posts are bait, you sound like you are acting retarded.

>cwebp has switches
yes, we did test all those. -m 6 is not always a good idea and it does not always lead to the better results - it can lead to a single better results, but on a large batch work -m 3 performed better
>-q 100
just go -lossless or -near_lossless

>Video and images use different colour spaces.
. . .

>Video is never rgb.
Categorically, blatantly and trivially false

>Software is doing whatever we program it to do
yes and we programed cwebp to encode to images and whatever else to encode to videos

>If tell it to treat a video with a single frame like an image, it will do that.
nope. it will treat a single frame video like a video. thats why its called video

>Because it's not implemented that way
nope.

>No it's not a fact. Video codecs are usually implemented extremely efficiently.
webp and webm have the same compression, if thats what you mean. and it has become a fact that moment i checked my cpu usage

>See everything people have written before in this thread.
I have

>If you save a video with a single video stream and a single frame in it and introduce some flag in the header of the container that declares a still image, that would work without any problems whatsoever.
obviously you havent read the thread. i was the FIRST one to try that out in my browser, and it did not work because images are not videos

>Yeah but you just don't. I'm starting to think your posts are bait, you sound like you are acting retarded.
whether you give it 1 frame or 100 doesnt make a differnce. its a video with 1 frame

>try changing an image file test.jpg to test.avi. not gonna happen
>tell me how to change the header of an image file to make it viewable in a video player
try renaming test.jpg to test.png and seeing if it gets parsed by a PNG decoder, you dumb piece of shit

>Its a fact. I had the problem with my own computer and other anons did too in here.
works fine in my image viewer

Name a single standard video format using RGB.
Protip: you can't.

>try renaming test.jpg to test.png and seeing if it gets parsed by a PNG decoder, you dumb piece of shit
i dont know what "parsed" means. also why call me a dumb piece of shit? im sorry i think you are the one who missed the point that .jpg to .avi is actually image -> video and .jpg to .png is actually image -> image. of course it will work chaning it from png to jpg. because both are images. lol youre really stupid

Retarded or bait, either way, I see no point explaining this stuff to someone without even the most basic understanding of video codecs and file formats in general.

MPEG-2
MPEG-4 Part 10 (AVC / H.264)
HEVC / H.265
VP8
VP9
Ogg Theora
etc.

need more?