Maximum Resolution

[mountiedm]

I've noticed that the encoder can't handle dimensions in excess of 16383.  My hope and wish is for this to be increased so I can play around with high-res images.  Love the software! Thanks!

[oX Triangle]

64Mpixel is maximum..

but with the layers (coming in future versions) its possible to extend the images

[Pascal Massimino]

Hi Scott,

On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 2:50 PM, mountiedm <scott...@gmail.com> wrote:

I've noticed that the encoder can't handle dimensions in excess of 16383.  My hope and wish is for this to be increased so I can play around with high-res images.  Love the software! Thanks!

this limitation is inherent to VP8, and has been reflected on the lossless format too for coherency.

Don't forget that WebP is mainly targeted for images on the web (and esp. mobile), where more than 16k

resolution has not frequent (compared to more storage-oriented application).

Yet, there's currently a reflection going on about using _fragments_ to increase the permitted resolution

(and maybe improve compression efficiency too). The drawback of this approach is the decoder complexity

it brings in. Nothing is decided yet...

Out of curiosity: what is your the use-case you had in mind for these large images? Just storage?

Thanks!

skal

 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "WebP Discussion" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to webp-discuss...@webmproject.org.
To post to this group, send email to webp-d...@webmproject.org.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/a/webmproject.org/group/webp-discuss/.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/a/webmproject.org/groups/opt_out.

[badon]

On Tuesday, December 17, 2013 at 11:32:46 AM UTC-8, skal wrote:

Hi Scott,

On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 2:50 PM, mountiedm <scott...@gmail.com> wrote:

I've noticed that the encoder can't handle dimensions in excess of 16383.  My hope and wish is for this to be increased so I can play around with high-res images.  Love the software! Thanks!

this limitation is inherent to VP8, and has been reflected on the lossless format too for coherency.

Don't forget that WebP is mainly targeted for images on the web (and esp. mobile), where more than 16k

resolution has not frequent (compared to more storage-oriented application).

Yet, there's currently a reflection going on about using _fragments_ to increase the permitted resolution

(and maybe improve compression efficiency too). The drawback of this approach is the decoder complexity

it brings in. Nothing is decided yet...

Out of curiosity: what is your the use-case you had in mind for these large images? Just storage?

Thanks!

skal

 I encountered this problem when testing different compression formats for preserving screenshots of websites on a forum. So, they're intended to be displayed on the web, and they're intended to be preserved in storage there too. Here is a modest example that doesn't push any limits:

https://forum.coincompendium.com/index.php?topic=4513.msg22608#msg22608

I've had trouble with PNG and JPEG with dimensions over 30'000 pixels, which unfortunately are pretty common for webpages, especially ones that display search results. The compression with WebP is faster and sometimes better than PNG for lossless images, but we can't even begin to consider using WebP if maximum sizes are constrained to such small values, almost HALF the size of PNG and JPEG - 16'383 pixels for WebP versus 30'000 for PNG and JPEG. I'm not sure if the limits I've encounterd with PNG and JPEG are part their specifications, or if it's just the implementations in the software I've been using, but either way, it's much superior to WebP. So there you have it, a use case for displaying very large WebP images, if they weren't limited to tiny values.