Google Wants To Kill JPEGs With New WebP Format

These pictures look exactly the same – but they’re not. Because the sign on the right, hypothetically, takes up nearly 40 per cent less space. That’s the version in WebP, Google’s plan to speed up the internet by slimming down its images.

What is WebP? It’s a new graphics format that Google hopes will make file transfers faster than currently possible with the relatively bulky JPEG standard. WebP, like JPEG, is a method of “lossy compression”, meaning that it doesn’t perfectly reproduce images, but gives you a choice between file size and picture quality.

According to Google, images make up about 65 per cent of bytes transmitted across the web today. Any way to reduce that would be hugely valuable for easing Google’s tremendous network burden. That’s a gigantic “would”, though – JPEG is deeply entrenched on the web, and WebP files take about eight times longer to encode. There’s also no browser support yet – which is why our example above is hypothetical.

Of course, native support for Chrome is all but inevitable, which means its presence on other WebKit browsers – like Safari – is equally assured. It’s no easy thing, launching a new file format, but if anyone’s got the scale and the determination to succeed, it’s Google. [Chromium Blog, CNET]

Discuss

(24 Comments)
  • [–]

    Andrew

    Friday, October 1, 2010 at 8:35 AM

    Umm,. you do realize that the side by side pic shown is all JPG? It’s sort of like saying this MP3 sounds the same as a CD, listen to this MP3 and this CD converted to MP3 to hear how similar they are.

    • [–]

      Arran

      Friday, October 1, 2010 at 8:47 AM

      Try reading the article again, that might help.

      • [–]

        Andrew

        Friday, October 1, 2010 at 11:14 PM

        Don’t get me wrong. I absolutely get the how, why and what of this article. I’m just saying that providing any sort of comparison by using lossy transcoding (taking a lossy encoded image and then re-encoding it in another lossy format) provides no basis for comparison at all. It actually demonstrates a real lack of knowledge or a brainfade to do this.

        Taking a WebP image and converting it back to an uncompressed format such as BMP, TIF, or even PNG for display in any browser would be a perfectly reasonable means of visually displaying/explaining the image quality. That would be perfectly achievable (and there are examples out there done this way).

        P.S. I can read just fine ;)

        http://xkcd.com/386/

    • [–]

      Nozlaf

      Friday, October 1, 2010 at 9:01 AM

      my thoughts exactly.

    • [–]

      Reece

      Friday, October 1, 2010 at 9:11 AM

      “There’s also no browser support yet – which is why our example above is hypothetical.”

    • [–]

      Aurius

      Friday, October 1, 2010 at 9:19 AM

      Yeah, well, considering that WebP is unsupported in all browsers at the moment, you can’t exactly compare the photo to a broken image icon.

    • [–]

      Simon Potts

      Friday, October 1, 2010 at 9:33 AM

      “There’s also no browser support yet – which is why our example above is hypothetical.” – Read the full article

    • [–]

      ouchie

      Friday, October 1, 2010 at 9:46 AM

      I think Giz may have done that if the file format isn’t supported on the major browsers yet.

    • [–]

      Curtis

      Friday, October 1, 2010 at 10:21 AM

      “…which is why our example above is hypothetical.”

    • [–]

      Brax

      Friday, October 1, 2010 at 10:34 AM

      Best if you actuallly take a moment to read the article you are complaining about.

  • [–]

    Blake

    Friday, October 1, 2010 at 8:55 AM

    I’m surprised JPEG2000 never took off, it was far superior to standard JPEG too.

  • [–]

    kakyoin01

    Friday, October 1, 2010 at 9:02 AM

    ha … ha … ha … ha?

    that’s very funny … i think

  • [–]

    glennc

    Friday, October 1, 2010 at 9:49 AM

    PNG anyone?

    • [–]

      Imprint

      Friday, October 1, 2010 at 10:59 AM

      Yeah you don’t know much about image compression, a full colour bitmap as a png would be atleast x3 the size of a jpg.

  • [–]

    Adam

    Friday, October 1, 2010 at 10:46 AM

    really? the internet is already thousands of times faster than it was when JPEG files came out.. this sounds more like a cost benefit more than a speed benefit..

    also, PNG files are much better than JPG files for pretty much everything..

    • [–]

      Milly

      Friday, October 1, 2010 at 12:03 PM

      Except maybe complicated and large scale colour images? Sure, .png is lossless, but when you get lots of colours involved, filesizes skyrocket compared to high quality .jpgs. Still, see your point :P

    • [–]

      Sam

      Friday, October 1, 2010 at 12:06 PM

      Except for size.

      • [–]

        Adam

        Monday, October 4, 2010 at 12:56 PM

        the first part of my post.. internet speed doesnt really matter with images.. what JPG is so big that it takes a long time to download? – my internet peaks at 116Mb/s, now if i can’t wait the 1second for a 14.5MB JPG to download, then there is a problem! does no one remember dial up? – this is when JPG’s were invented FFS.. internet 1000x faster, JPG the same size.. what’s the problem!?

  • [–]

    G

    Friday, October 1, 2010 at 11:22 AM

    and my growing hatred of google grows a little more…

    • [–]

      Steeeve

      Friday, October 1, 2010 at 2:13 PM

      Really?… Why?

    • [–]

      Steve

      Friday, October 1, 2010 at 2:36 PM

      Why? They are trying to improve ze interwebs… Embrace change, it’s not always bad!!

      • [–]

        WhiteDemon

        Friday, October 1, 2010 at 7:01 PM

        if you hat Google, then why the f*ck did you call yourself G? that is like hating Microsoft (which I do) and calling yourself MS. makes no sense. it is a similar situation to OK magazine. when they pick up the phone, the say ‘hello OK’. how annoying would it be to have to mention a rival magazine before you mention your own? that is what you are doing, though not quite as bad

  • [–]

    cleverclogs

    Friday, October 1, 2010 at 11:27 AM

    I’m still waiting for implementation of JPEG-XR.

  • [–]

    Poepsnoet

    Friday, October 1, 2010 at 9:12 PM

    Bring back Compuserve GIF.

Join The Discussion