Native WebP Support via Google Services (Blogger, Photos)

[Alexander P.]

Currently, after uploading a webp image, Google Services (Blogger, Google Photos) decodes it to JPEG.

 

Even If using -rw prefix with a webp or jpg, a photo will be different in size comparing to original one, always larger when dealing with 1200px in width. /s600/ would result well, but /s1600/ always bigger. 

Test case:

(1)original image -  test2x.webp =184Kb (1280px wide) 

uploading to Blogger (the same for GPhotos, if check via googleusercontent): 

../s1600-rw/test2x.webp  =  210Kb 

../s1600/test2x.webp = 421Kb 

(2)original image test2x.jpg = 263 Kb (1280px) 

../s1600-rw/test2x.jpg  =  280 Kb, again larger

As you see, there is no way to get the original Webp file with 184 Kb in size for Google Photos & Blogger.

Logically for Google products to have a native support for webp format, who else if not a creator then?

Any ideas? 

I suggest to provide some prefix for original source, e.g. .../s1600-org/image.webp, which return non encoded webp file.

[Urvang Joshi]

Hi Alexander,
It's possible that the upload flow may be adding an ICC profile (RGB color profile, for example) to both JPEG and WebP.

After downloading the WebP file (with the "-rw" option), can you run 'webpmux -info test2x.webp" to see if it has an ICC profile?

--
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/d/optout.

[Alexander P.]

Hi Urvang,

thanks for your interest, and the results are:

for test2x.webp with -rw option with size of 210Kb - webpmux says there is Features Present indeed, but not ICC, it is EXIF metadata has appeared with size of 34. I have to admit there wasn't any metadata in original 184 Kb image.

Thus, I may assume that these services convert webp to jpeg at first, than apply their own quality number with webp encoder together with extra metadata, and return us bigger file. Which is controversial because the idea of webp is smaller size in good quality.

[Sherif M. Awad]

Any updates about the past dicussion?