Google Pushes Webp Image Format Over Jpeg And Png To Save Bandwidth And Improve Speed

[george]

Google Pushes WebP Image Format Over JPEG and PNG to Save Bandwidth and Improve Speed

Since speed is critical for a good experience when using the web, at Google we’re always exploring ways to make the web faster. As it turns out, one of the biggest bang-for-the-buck ways to do that is by replacing JPEG and PNG images with WebP. WebP offers significantly better compression than these legacy formats (around 35% better in most cases), and when you consider that over 60% of typical page sizes are images, the benefits can be substantial. WebP translates directly into less bandwidth consumption, decreased latency, faster page loads, better battery consumption on mobile, and overall happier users.

--

By converting PNGs and JPEGs to WebP, the Chrome Web Store was able to reduce image sizes by about 30% on average (here’s one sample image in WebP at 8.3kB and JPEG at 32kB). Given the number of requests Chrome Web Store serves, this adds up to several terabytes of savings every day.

Full story: http://blog.chromium...rove-speed.html

[MJCM]

I think it is a good idea, but the other major player in the web browser market (namely Firefox) doesn't support it (yet).

[JetsetBkk]

I think it is a good idea, but the other major player in the web browser market (namely Firefox) doesn't support it (yet).

Somebody'll produce an Extension, sorry "Add-on", to handle it, I'm sure.

[NeverSure]

My problem is that every time a file is converted, there is data loss. Good photos will degrade. For instance my version of Photoshop won't handle it that I know of. I could first convert it to a jpg, work on it, and convert it, but there would be loss.

None of my cameras will do that format so there would be loss. I could shoot in raw but what a waste of time.

I think Goooogle is just trying to monopolize everything, everywhere I look.

[AyG]

Even though browsers other than Chrome don't support the format, there are savings to be had - albeit at the expense of greater complexity. The web server must have two versions of each image file - one in a traditional format, the other in the new format. For each page request the server has to detect the browser being used and then serve up the new format if it's supported by the browser, and otherwise serve up the old format.

The reference "converting PNGs and JPEGs to WebP" is rather misleading. No professional would create original artwork using any of these formats - he/she would use a lossless format* such as .xcf or .psd. These file would then be converted to both .jpeg/.png and .webp independently.

* And yes, I know that technically .png can be lossless.

[BlackPuddingBertha]

I certainly wouldn't even think about wasting time on this until all major browsers support it out of the box.

[Pib]

Definitely no shortage of image formats already as various companies over the years tried to improve things and/or capture the file image market...the more the merrier I guess. But if a new file image format will significantly increase the speed of web browsing/web sites then go for it!!!.

[AyG]

I certainly wouldn't even think about wasting time on this until all major browsers support it out of the box.

I can only presume that you don't run a very popular website with a significant graphics content. There are bandwidth (and hence cost) savings to be made now - even though the format has only limited browser support.

[BlackPuddingBertha]

I can only presume that you don't run a very popular website with a significant graphics content. There are bandwidth (and hence cost) savings to be made now - even though the format has only limited browser support.

I have various sites, some very popular and some less so. None are over the top on graphics content and all are on unlimited bandwidth contracts, so there is really no advantage to me of this new format unless it becomes universally supported.

The reference "converting PNGs and JPEGs to WebP" is rather misleading. No professional would create original artwork using any of these formats - he/she would use a lossless format* such as .xcf or .psd. These file would then be converted to both .jpeg/.png and .webp independently.

I'm a professional and I often use Fireworks/png for original artwork for web use. It's very quick and convenient. I do also use Photoshop for more complex things, but Fireworks does the vast bulk of what I need and the results are fine. And this topic is all about images for screen display, not artwork for printing where quality is likely to be paramount.

Even when I get sent a jpg for inclusion on a website I usually end up compressing it to a small proportion of the original size, and I'm sure that others do the same, so there's rarely any need for super high quality.