W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-respimg@w3.org > October 2012

Re: WebP, anyone using it?

From: Matthew Wilcox <elvendil@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2012 11:34:02 +0100
Message-ID: <CAMCRKiJhgaYwkiO8WNKM0iEvPdju62OT=_OCxr46onAUe3bb0A@mail.gmail.com>
To: Kornel <kornel@geekhood.net>
Cc: public-respimg@w3.org
On 19 October 2012 10:53, Kornel <kornel@geekhood.net> wrote:
> On 19 paź 2012, at 08:29, Matthew Wilcox <elvendil@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Though I would *love* alpha on lossy images. A number of designs from my work have to be turned back and edited because they're simply not practical with PNG alphas.
>
> PNG does support a form of lossy images with alpha — palette-quantised images can have varying degrees of transparency.

I use this via ImgAlpha and ImgOptim on the Mac. It's only suitable
for limited colour pallet images and is not a solution appropriate for
photographic imagery with an alpha. That's the point.

> The problem is that Photoshop doesn't support this, so many authors assume it's impossible.
>
> http://pngmini.com http://pngquant.org
>
> While it's not as good as WebP:
>
> http://pngmini.com/vs-webp/
>
> IMHO for majority of cases it's "good enough".

No it isn't. As noted; I've had to send designs back because they're
not practically achievable with the file formats we have to work with.

> There's also potential to make 24-bit PNG smaller by removing information (e.g. by posterising and lossy application of PNG's filters).

You're arguing about how to "optimise" an image for a file format that
is not the correct one for the job.

> --
> regards, Kornel
Received on Friday, 19 October 2012 10:34:29 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 19 October 2012 10:34:30 GMT