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

Re: WebP, anyone using it?

From: Marcos Caceres <w3c@marcosc.com>
Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2012 11:39:04 +0100
To: Matthew Wilcox <elvendil@gmail.com>
Cc: Kornel <kornel@geekhood.net>, public-respimg@w3.org
Message-ID: <5E0456CDB54F414E993A4BB118632104@marcosc.com>
Hi All,  
I want to thank everyone on input on this thread - I think we've all gained a lot from it, but we are reaching the point of diminishing returns (and we seem to be going around in circles a bit).  

An action item from this thread would be to reach out to both the WebP people and the JPEG-XR people and ask them how we can help (or if they see <picture> as helping). Matt, can I put you in charge of that?  

For everyone else, it would be preferable if we could refocus our energy on our group's current big goal/milestone: reviewing and providing feedback on the Use Cases and Requirements document before we forward it to the HTML Working Group and WHATWG:

Kind regards,
Marcos Caceres

On Friday, 19 October 2012 at 11:34, Matthew Wilcox wrote:

> On 19 October 2012 10:53, Kornel <kornel@geekhood.net (mailto:kornel@geekhood.net)> wrote:
> > On 19 paź 2012, at 08:29, Matthew Wilcox <elvendil@gmail.com (mailto: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 10:39:40 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:06:08 UTC