Pardon my ignorance, as I'm just a poor webmaster running GIMP to edit my images, but how do we convert to this thing? I've never even heard of it.
@diberry - Simply install the codec and save as WebP.
Can all browsers recognise this and display it correctly?
Chrome and Opera native "support" only..Mozilla ( Firefox ) will not support, "wont fix".. [arstechnica.com...]
Other browsers and software "support" WebP, with a plugin <= from Google ;)..Wikipedia article about the Google format [en.wikipedia.org...]
|"With a plug in from Google" |
Proprietry then. No thanks.
I get by just fine with the current formats available. I always optimize images down to a bare minimum and it works just fine.
A WW member posted the name of another JPEG compression tool last week, I checked it out, and it did a very good job of further compressing JPEGs that I thought I couldn't squeeze anymore KB's out of. It was no good for gradient images though -- degraded them. Then a few days ago I found one for PNGs that reduced file sizes by a whooping 80% without any loss of quality.
Until now I had avoided using PNGs due to their larger file size and not being able to compress them enough for my liking. I prefer their transparency ability over GIFs and can now use them.
|with a plugin <= from Google |
As it relates to google it would best be termed a parasite. One which has now seriously infected the internet.
|Then a few days ago I found one for PNGs that reduced file sizes by a whooping 80% without any loss of quality. |
BTW ..I won't be using WebP either..for quality reasons, and all the reasons mentioned in posts above..beware of Goog's bearing "gifts"..
TinyPNG for PNGs and JPEGmini for JPGs.
I use GIMP and even with maximum compression for PNGs I can variably reduce them by another 50%-85% with TinyPNG. You'll know you landed on the proper site if you see a panda.
With the sheer size of Google's client base, this could easily become the tipping point for Chrome adoption if Google starts shoving WebP down their throats.
For instance, switching just one massively popular service like YouTube to only use formats supported by Chrome would pretty much make a lot of people addicted to YouTube switch browsers and cause a massive shift in the balance of power overnight.
This could be amusing to see how it plays out.
I've been aware of WebP for almost 2 years now when it first reared it's head. I think if anything like that was going to happen it would have by now.
Besides that, google might have more to loose within the internet development community than they would have to gain from chrome adoption.
By now I'm sure they are well aware of the growing momentum of anti-google sentiment. I don't think they would consider throwing more fuel on the fire.
|For instance, switching just one massively popular service like YouTube to only use formats supported by Chrome would pretty much make a lot of people addicted to YouTube switch browsers and cause a massive shift in the balance of power overnight. |
Easily solved ..install SRWare Iron <= Chrome without the "Googly bits" ;)
I read some time back about Google converting YouTube videos to some new storage format, starting with those with the most traffic. Whatever that format is, I do see a fall-off in picture quality, especially with artefacts being generated on some types of movement.
From the referenced Wikipedia article:
|IE6+ support is achieved by using Flash |
Hard to see this as progress for displaying still images.
Until it is a cross-browser standard (as in "without a plugin") then I am not interested.
|Then a few days ago I found one for PNGs that reduced file sizes by a whooping 80% without any loss of quality |
I'll take your word that you got it 80% smaller, but I refute the "without any loss of quality" with vigor. As that's simply not going to happen unless it's an extremely simple image and stored really poorly. What I presume it should say is that's it without all too much loss of quality - but not without *any* loss of quality.
And then "all too much" becomes subject for debate...
png-8's can seem on first looks quite fine it you reduce the number of colors they can contain but there is a lot of quality loss in that process even if it might not be all too obvious on first looks.
|I'll take your word that you got it 80% smaller... |
It was actually 83% but I rounded it down. And I'm taking their word for it I didn't actually do the math myself. It was just a whole bunch and that was good enough for me. I did study the contrast between the two intently afterward and I didn't see any loss of quality.
Google bought the technology so instead of using other people's technology it makes sense they would want to make their investment go as far as possible, if for no other reason than to be a big bully and push people around just like MS does.
For instance, the whole world used Apache and LAMP but MS had to shove IIS and ASP down our throats just because they could. We already had Flash but here comes Silverlight whether you like it or not.
MS had an advantage since they had their own OS and browser which was the dominant OS and browser they could instantly make anything they added a 'standard' regardless of whether any other browser on the planet adopted the technology or not. The more proprietary stuff MS could stick on the web, the more tightly customers would get tied to MS for all their needs.
Apple does the same thing with Safari and Quicktime, and all the other Mac formats and iCrud, etc.
Google obviously wants to be in that same situation and since has created Chrome which has finally gotten significant market share. While Google may not own the OS, which they attempted and failed with Chromebook, they have several wildly popular dominant web services which in combination of Chrome can easily be used to create their own proprietary web stuff.
Get use to it because Firefox and Opera are about the only two independent mainstream browsers left and neither have enough clout to do what Firefox is doing, which is to tell Google, Apple or Microsoft they won't support something because the simple matter is it will inevitably cost those browser only vendors market share which they're lucky to keep at this point.
If it wasn't for the vast library of Firefox add-ons I think it would've been a footnote long ago so they should tread lightly.
Thank you, incrediBill. Exactly what I was thinking. I would have added our ol' pal Adobe, famous for, among other things, PDFs.
|I would have added our ol' pal Adobe, famous for, among other things, PDFs. |
Funny you mention PDFs because Adobe used to be where Google headquarters is in Mtn. View and I used to work next door on Landings Drive at an email company acquired by Lotus. We had some meetings with the fine people at Adobe way back when as they were looking for input on a universal file format that could be used to exchange data via email or other methods that anyone could read which I assume became PDF and solved a really big problem.
People may give PDF and Flash a lot of grief, but I don't think we'd be nearly as far along as we are if those things hadn't been invented because they both solved a very real need that nobody else was interested in solving at the time.
My solution to viewing file attachments at the time, pre-dating PDF, was to include the document data conversion filters from Lotus AmiPro word processor that allowed us to render most common proprietary formats, and there was a BUNCH back then, to common text. You guys don't know how easy it is to exchange data today but when the PDF finally arrived was a godsend.
Another reason Word and Excel rose to dominance was data interchangeability issues.
All I can say to Firefox is 'buck up' because supporting one little format is trivial and if they were smart they'd have a simple file format rendering layer that allowed anyone to provide new formats as long as it fit their API and then we wouldn't even be having this conversation as Google would've provided the code for them.
It's not that hard to do, been there, done that, get with the program.
FYI, my wife worked for Macromedia which created ShockWave which later became Abode Flash which is why I have a bit of a soft spot for Flash.
I'm not so sure that I really want Google cling-ons attached to my browser .. I mean .. Google stuff is fine for others, but so far I've managed to keep my systems fairly Google free ..
If Google is tired of paying for the bandwidth, or paying their electric bill, or are quite possibly getting tired of building more server farms, then that's not really my problem ..
I'll render and keep my graphics and images the way they are .. I'll let Google go thru the time and the expense to render whatever graphics and images they feel they have to ..
heh .. I'm sort of reminded of Yahoo's RTML language .. in that, no one but Yahoo uses it.
I'm seeing Google's WebP image format in much the same way as that ..
as an aside .. @incrediBILL .. I really wish that Macromedia would have never sold out to Adobe ..
|If Google is tired of paying for the bandwidth |
This might explain why they are stealing our bandwidth in the new image search ...
Mozilla's Jeff Muizelaar calls the format "half baked".
A good number of my visitors use Firefox so I'm out as well.
|While Google may not own the OS |
Au contraire IncrediBill - they *do* own the OS as you mentioned and I backed up with numbers in a recent thread on January 1 -http://www.webmasterworld.com/msft/4531296.htm [webmasterworld.com].
Android is now the leading OS in the world and the fastest growing. Sure, not on the desktop, but who cares about the desktop anymore?
If every Android-based web-enabled device from Android phones to the Kindle Fire tablets upgraded to an Android distro with WebP rolled in, that would cover over 42% of all brwosing devices right now and that proportion is growing.
|but who cares about the desktop anymore? |
|Android is now the leading OS in the world and the fastest growing. |
Au contraire, Linux is the leading OS.
Not to mention we were discussing desktops, not mobile, as the primary focus was on Firefox that is only now just starting to get into mobile.
|include the document data conversion filters from Lotus AmiPro word processor that allowed us to render most common proprietary formats, and there was a BUNCH back then |
Wow, that takes me back. I remember using Ami when they were still owned by Samna. I also remember having quickview as one of my most used apps. I have no desire to go back to those days.
Google's virtual head is so big these days they think they can be as proprietary as Microsoft was in the day.
Nothing against the big G really, but it is getting VERY tiresome seeing "G" says do it this way, "G" says do that, "G" says this is best, "G" says my link is 'over optimized'?...
If people would stop acting like their "G" stands for god, it wouldn't, and can't. But webmaster especially fall all over themselves to bow at the feet of the interne-god: Google.
I think it's getting a bit on the crAzY side...the "Outer Limits" or "Twilight Zone" circa 2013...
|... but who cares about the desktop anymore? .. |
I might have some kind of difficulty doing what I do for a living on a hand-held device .. Desktops/Laptops can often times play a fairly critical role in how you view what you view in a hand-held device ..