WebP support

Proposals and Suggestions for new features and improvements in XnView Classic

Moderators: Olivier_G, Dreamer, XnTriq, helmut, xnview

WebP support

Postby MaxSt » Fri Oct 01, 2010 7:18 am

New image format from Google:

http://code.google.com/speed/webp/gallery.html

The format Is very young, so no image viewers support it, but... it's a good opportunity for XnView to be the first! Please, add WebP support!
MaxSt
 
Posts: 132
Joined: Fri Apr 10, 2009 9:55 pm

Re: WebP support

Postby xnview » Sat Oct 02, 2010 12:14 pm

Yes, i've seen it :-)
Pierre.
User avatar
xnview
Author of XnView
 
Posts: 22683
Joined: Mon Oct 13, 2003 7:31 am
Location: France

Re: WebP support

Postby Drahken » Thu Oct 07, 2010 1:17 pm

I think webp is a bad idea. There are already several JPG replacement formats floating around (jpeg 2000, hdphoto/jpeg-xr for example), and none are getting very widespread support yet (jp2k's the best supported, but it's been around for many years now & seems likely to die a quiet death). Adding yet another one at this point will only muddy the waters & make it so that none of them get widespread support. Additionally, the size improvements aren't very significant over JPEG, and webp is apparently limited to the lowest quality chroma subsampling (meaning all webp pics will look as bad as the worst jpeg pics). High quality subsampling (ie, no subsampling) has a massive effect on quality while only impacting filesize slightly, throwing that away in webp is indescribably stupid.

It would probably be best for xnview to support webp since ones of xnview's best features is the fact that it can read nearly any image format, but I hope the webp format itself dies off quickly.
Oh the feuhrer, oh the feuhrer, oh the feuhrer's nipples bonk!
User avatar
Drahken
 
Posts: 872
Joined: Sun Apr 10, 2005 4:29 pm

Re: WebP support

Postby MaxSt » Fri Oct 08, 2010 10:00 am

Drahken wrote:Adding yet another one at this point will only muddy the waters & make it so that none of them get widespread support.


Trying new things is always good. Look at video codecs, how many new ones we saw since DivX 3 days? Probably hundreds. They compete, they learn from each other, some die, but top codecs right now are much much better than DivX 3.

Two jpeg alternatives in 20 years is not enough. Let google try. Let hipix try.
If they'll fail, others will learn from it.

Drahken wrote:webp is apparently limited to the lowest quality chroma subsampling


It's not just subsampling in encoder, but decoder have to upscale it correctly. Right now their decoder is absolute crap. Instead of interpolating chrome samples, it just doubles them. I send them some horribly pixelated examples, and they promised to fix it:

http://code.google.com/p/webp/issues/detail?id=14

Drahken wrote:I hope the webp format itself dies off quickly.


I hope WebP can and will be improved. They are not experts in image compression, but they could learn.
MaxSt
 
Posts: 132
Joined: Fri Apr 10, 2009 9:55 pm

Re: WebP support

Postby DOS386 » Wed Oct 13, 2010 12:44 am

I think webp is a bad idea. There are already several JPG replacement formats floating around (jpeg 2000, hdphoto/jpeg-xr for example), and none are getting very widespread support yet (jp2k's the best supported, but it's been around for many years now & seems likely to die a quiet death).


JPEG-2000 is proprietary (RTFL) so it's useless. Similar applies to other competitors: proprietary or too slow, useless.

Adding yet another one at this point will only muddy the waters & make it so that none of them get widespread support. Additionally, the size improvements aren't very significant over JPEG


Good point.

MaxSt wrote:Trying new things is always good.


Not always. New things are only good if they are significantly superior to old stuff and don't have critical regressions (JPEG-2000 has a critical regression in license/legal area).

Look at video codecs, how many new ones we saw since DivX 3 days? Probably hundreds.


99.9% of them are useless ;-)

They compete, they learn from each other, some die, but top codecs right now are much much better than DivX 3.


Just the competition is far away from fair :-(

BTW, there is a need for a JPEG replacement, for following reasons:

- Lossless JPEG "recompression" exists (JPEG must be bad if this really works ...)
- JPEG spec is bad (too complicated, only a subset is used)

http://code.google.com/speed/webp/faq.html
http://code.google.com/speed/webp/docs/ ... ainer.html

Also, this WebP is based on VP8 video codec (good) but the RIFF is a very bad idea. I haven't really evaluated the thing yet.

What I primarily want to see about WebP (or any other JPEG replacement or some other new thing) one day is a high quality specification.
There is indeed no WinZIP under my rock.
User avatar
DOS386
 
Posts: 282
Joined: Sun Jun 11, 2006 2:43 pm

Re: WebP support

Postby MaxSt » Wed Oct 13, 2010 4:24 am

DOS386 wrote:Not always. New things are only good if they are significantly superior to old stuff and don't have critical regressions


Always. Not-superior ones could serve as a learning experience for others. I consider it good too.
MaxSt
 
Posts: 132
Joined: Fri Apr 10, 2009 9:55 pm

Re: WebP support

Postby rabbat » Thu Nov 04, 2010 5:25 am

MaxST,
check out the nightly build of Chromium and the updated lib-webp-decode

http://code.google.com/p/webp/issues/detail?id=14
has been addressed
rabbat
 
Posts: 1
Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2010 5:20 am

Re: WebP support

Postby budz45 » Sat Feb 04, 2012 7:59 pm

Another sample gallery;
http://code.google.com/speed/webp/gallery1.html

---------------------

Right,

It would be good if WebP and WebM as now added to the XnView 'Formats' website page :)
http://xnview.com/en/formats.html
All My Topics || my 'MP' Topics
My own Bookmarked topics--->for me only
User avatar
budz45
 
Posts: 1543
Joined: Sun Jun 03, 2007 6:05 pm
Location: UK

Re: WebP support

Postby DOS386 » Sun Feb 19, 2012 9:52 am

budz45 wrote:would be good if WebP and WebM as now added to the XnView 'Formats' website page http://xnview.com/en/formats.html


WebP is already there (but fails to mention that only by plugin, and how far this includes the later lossless and transy flavor, or not).

WebM is a video format and NC/XN doesn't support it.
There is indeed no WinZIP under my rock.
User avatar
DOS386
 
Posts: 282
Joined: Sun Jun 11, 2006 2:43 pm

Re: WebP support

Postby eL_PuSHeR » Sun Feb 26, 2012 10:42 am

I downloaded a precompiled win32 version yesterday. It includes the lossless format to transform from and to PNG. The lossless format has a webpll extension and cannot be opened yet.

Lossy compression can be opened normally under XnView (using 1.98.6), but when invoking file properties it shows compression: none.

It should say compression: webp lossy.

png2webpll is also SLOW AS HELL (but Google already stated that at this moment).

It packs files tighter than PNG though. It would be real cool if XnView would support this lossless flavour although I find rather idiotic to use a separate file extension for it.
eL_PuSHeR
 
Posts: 259
Joined: Sat Apr 25, 2009 9:23 am

Re: WebP support

Postby Drahken » Sun Feb 26, 2012 3:24 pm

Have you tried renaming the file to a webp extension & see if xnview can open it?
Oh the feuhrer, oh the feuhrer, oh the feuhrer's nipples bonk!
User avatar
Drahken
 
Posts: 872
Joined: Sun Apr 10, 2005 4:29 pm

Re: WebP support

Postby eL_PuSHeR » Mon Feb 27, 2012 8:02 am

Yes I did.

Headers are completely different

Start of WEBP Lossy header:

RIFF:ø WEBPVP8

Start of WEBPLL Lossless header:

È8’Øæ
 A(

They are completely different formats (Google already stated that too).
eL_PuSHeR
 
Posts: 259
Joined: Sat Apr 25, 2009 9:23 am

Re: WebP support

Postby DOS386 » Sun Mar 04, 2012 11:29 am

I downloaded some binaries from "Nov 17" ... authors don't offer a single lossless file themselves!!! (there are a few lossy ones, finally). I started it ... no result ... either it hangs or it's too slow (PNGOUT was done after few s with same image). OK, got a result, only with -c 0 2x bigger then PNG ... and at least 10x slower than PNGOUT, messages are strange, what's the default value of "c" ??? Where is TFM ? Where is the spec ? File begins with $42 $15 $DC $A8 ... it's a completely different format. Why don't they put "WebP" in there (with some non-printable char's like PNG did) ? :-(
There is indeed no WinZIP under my rock.
User avatar
DOS386
 
Posts: 282
Joined: Sun Jun 11, 2006 2:43 pm

Re: WebP support

Postby eL_PuSHeR » Mon Mar 05, 2012 7:58 am

No. It's not hanging. It's just pretty slow. Try with a small PNG file first (maybe less than 50KB in size).
eL_PuSHeR
 
Posts: 259
Joined: Sat Apr 25, 2009 9:23 am

Re: WebP support

Postby Froggy01 » Wed Feb 27, 2013 11:21 am

I just want to make a small remark about WebP format support in XnView:

In the formats documentation page, it is not metionned that a plugin is required to read WebP images...
There should be a blue image like this Image

Not sure if this topic is appropriate, but I found no one more relevant...
User avatar
Froggy01
 
Posts: 1
Joined: Wed Feb 27, 2013 11:09 am


Return to Suggestions

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest