Although this sounds like something that could be useful for making the web faster for users in all aspects, it still faces a lot of challenges. JPEG is probably the most used format, probably because it is often the default format therefore people feel comfortable with it. That isn't going to change overnight. Microsoft has also tried to promote an alternate format (JPEG XR), for years in fact, with little progress. JPEG XR format offers greater dynamic range, a wider range of colors and more efficient compression. However it doesn't receive support aside from native- Internet Explorer and Windows. Google acknowledges that launching WebP will take a lot of effort and promotion.
Google is taking the first steps by talking to browser makers and trying to get vendors to support WebP. Since Google is a dominant browser and has several other successful webpages they have a good chance of making this a successful and real technology whereas other companies have not been able to. Google plans to release WebP software which will let users convert graphics to WebP images and judge the quality for themselves.

This image has been encoded with WebP. Because browsers can't show WebP natively today, this WebP image actually is displayed here as a PNG graphic that captures the WebP version without changes. In its WebP incarnation, the image is 36,154 bytes.
(Credit: Google)

The same image encoded with JPEG. Its file size is 46,768 bytes.
(Credit: Google)
(Credit: Google)
is it bad that I don't really see a difference?
ReplyDeleteum i think there is a really slight difference in color but the main reason for it is the small file size so it loads faster.
ReplyDelete