--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "WebP Discussion" group.
To post to this group, send email to webp-d...@webmproject.org.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to webp-discuss...@webmproject.org.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/a/webmproject.org/group/webp-discuss/?hl=en.
YES, in fact even 1 bit per pixel (on / off) would be an amazing option as mobile displays are dense enough to work well with something like that.
On Thursday, January 13, 2011 6:53:02 PM UTC-5, skal wrote:
Hi,
On Wed, Jan 5, 2011 at 2:25 PM, Jari Pennanen <jari.p...@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi!
I know this is discussed here earlier, but in order to make the weppy
relevant it should standout from the pack. There is a rising need for
lossy images that would in addition support alpha transparency.
In fact I think it could be major "selling point" for this format.
Please consider this as an addition to format.since it would require a format change, that's something to carefully consider.I'd have one question for the savvy alpha-plane users:would half-resolution be enough for the alpha-plane (like chroma plans)?Or shall it be kept at full resolution, like luma plane?skal
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "WebP Discussion" group.
To post to this group, send email to webp-d...@webmproject.org.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to webp-discuss+unsubscribe@webmproject.org.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/a/webmproject.org/group/webp-discuss/?hl=en.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "WebP Discussion" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/webmproject.org/d/msg/webp-discuss/-/SyXkyINekngJ.
Awesome, I'm glad I decided to start using libvpx :) Is alpha support available through a beta or anything right now?
cd libwebp
./autogen.sh
./configure
make
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/webmproject.org/d/msg/webp-discuss/-/p5-VVLqEw6EJ.
Hi Justin,Experiemental support for alpha channel with lossy WebP images was announced in November last year:In fact, the alpha channel in WebP can either be at full resolution or could be quantized (e.g. for mobile devices) based on parameter 'alpha_quality'.The alpha support is planned to be released with Libwebp v0.1.4 in a matter of weeks.
Thanks,Urvang
On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 8:42 AM, <justin...@gmail.com> wrote:
YES, in fact even 1 bit per pixel (on / off) would be an amazing option as mobile displays are dense enough to work well with something like that.
On Thursday, January 13, 2011 6:53:02 PM UTC-5, skal wrote:
Hi,
On Wed, Jan 5, 2011 at 2:25 PM, Jari Pennanen <jari.p...@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi!
I know this is discussed here earlier, but in order to make the weppy
relevant it should standout from the pack. There is a rising need for
lossy images that would in addition support alpha transparency.
In fact I think it could be major "selling point" for this format.
Please consider this as an addition to format.since it would require a format change, that's something to carefully consider.I'd have one question for the savvy alpha-plane users:would half-resolution be enough for the alpha-plane (like chroma plans)?Or shall it be kept at full resolution, like luma plane?skal
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "WebP Discussion" group.
To post to this group, send email to webp-d...@webmproject.org.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to webp-discuss...@webmproject.org.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/a/webmproject.org/group/webp-discuss/?hl=en.
Hi,On Wed, Jan 5, 2011 at 2:25 PM, Jari Pennanen <jari.p...@gmail.com> wrote:Hi!
I know this is discussed here earlier, but in order to make the weppy
relevant it should standout from the pack. There is a rising need for
lossy images that would in addition support alpha transparency.
In fact I think it could be major "selling point" for this format.
Please consider this as an addition to format.since it would require a format change, that's something to carefully consider.I'd have one question for the savvy alpha-plane users:would half-resolution be enough for the alpha-plane (like chroma plans)?Or shall it be kept at full resolution, like luma plane?
[...]
Also, the diagrams of chunks with flag bits are confusing and doesn't seem to match the implementation in libwebp code (in particular, VP8X flags). Can the diagram be clarified in all cases where flag bits are shown?
Perhaps by treating flag words *not* as multi-byte words (where endianness matters), but as non-endian byte sequences (i.e. depict bytes or FOURCC signatures in file order, first to last = left to right, and always show bits in a single byte in most-to-least significance (L to R) order. This would be unambiguous and conventional.
On Thursday, June 27, 2013 9:01:09 PM UTC-7, toby wrote:[...]
Also, the diagrams of chunks with flag bits are confusing and doesn't seem to match the implementation in libwebp code (in particular, VP8X flags). Can the diagram be clarified in all cases where flag bits are shown?Yes this can be clarified. The order for the flags is correct and presented in MSB order, typical in e.g., RFC documentation -- there's a reference for that, but there's nothing in the document currently describing this convention on a quick glance.
Perhaps by treating flag words *not* as multi-byte words (where endianness matters), but as non-endian byte sequences (i.e. depict bytes or FOURCC signatures in file order, first to last = left to right, and always show bits in a single byte in most-to-least significance (L to R) order. This would be unambiguous and conventional.FourCC's are presented in file order as in the header [1], ChunkHeader() uses the same ordering.
On Friday, 28 June 2013 19:56:38 UTC-4, James Zern wrote:
On Thursday, June 27, 2013 9:01:09 PM UTC-7, toby wrote:[...]
Also, the diagrams of chunks with flag bits are confusing and doesn't seem to match the implementation in libwebp code (in particular, VP8X flags). Can the diagram be clarified in all cases where flag bits are shown?Yes this can be clarified. The order for the flags is correct and presented in MSB order, typical in e.g., RFC documentation -- there's a reference for that, but there's nothing in the document currently describing this convention on a quick glance.
I don't find the term "MSB order" self explanatory in itself. "MSB to LSB, left to right" would be clearer. I guess my biggest quibble is labelling the MOST significant bit "bit 0"? (Yes, I know RFCs are similar, and they are similarly ambiguous as a result; I had a look at the TCP RFC for example.)