Google's WebP
Google's WebP
187 留言
-
I recently put in a lot of hours for a software system to be able to handle webp just as well as every other image format it already accepted. I put in a lot of work as well. Hadn't heard about it for a while, but saw the feature release statement for the new version I knew my changes were in. It wasn't on there. So I reached out to my contact and asked if there was an issue or did it get bumped to a later version or what? So she told me the marketing team that do the release statements decided not to include it. They stated for one, people already expect common formats to be handled. Saying you now handle a format looks bad, since people know you didn't handle it before and were behind the curve. The second (probably more important) reason was nobody knew what webp even was and it's only something technical people care about (they probably said nerds, but my contact translated). So no regular customer would be interested and it could only lead to confusion and questions.
I hope somebody is happy with the work I put in tho. Somebody is going to drag a webp into the system and have it be accepted. Someday.... I hope...
-
- Fuck those people for telling you this after you did the work
- Those reasons are hard-stop stupid. If they REALLY cared about the marketing they'd release it silently or add a "improvements to image format handling" line and leave it at that.
-
Maybe I worded it incorrectly. The feature was released in that version. They just didn't mention it in the release statement they put out to their customers. I'm sure there's some changelog somewhere people can dig into where it says something like what you mentioned. Or it can just be under "Various small improvements" which they always add as a catch-all.
So I'm happy, I did the job and got paid. Everyone I worked with was happy. And the feature got released. It's was just a let down it didn't get mentioned at all, even though I put quite a lot of work into it.
-
I will second the suggestion at something like "expanded support for more image formats". One of my responsibilities is rolling the development log into customer release notes and I agree with the "changes that highlight a previous shortcoming can look bad", and make accommodations for that all the time. I also try to make sure every developer that contributed can recognize their work in the release notes.
"Expanded image format support" seems like something that if a customer hasn't noticed, they would assume "oh they must have some customer with a weird proprietary format that they added but have to be vague about". If it were related to customer requests, I would email the specific customers highlighting their need for webp is addressed after pushing the release notes
-
I hope somebody is happy with the work I put in tho. Somebody is going to drag a webp into the system and have it be accepted.
And that was me! I mean, not with your software but with someone else's years ago. Still, in a weird anachronistic karma sort of way, thank you for caring.
-
The only ones reading the changelog are nerds anyway
-
I appreciate it! Thank you
-
a bit related.
Was working for a comparison engine. Back in the day things where slow. But i made it lightning fast. Pretty proud.
Untill a few weeks later the manager comes up, and tells me to make it SLOWER!
apparently users thought it was suss that it was so fast and the results therefore where fake…
-
Let me introduce you to good old speed up loops.
-
-
That marketing team is a bunch of absolute morons. Handling Webp would have made the comapny trendsetters.
-
-
Just change the file extension to *.png. Works every time.
-
surprised_pikachu.webp.png
-
Wait till you find out what's inside when you change Office files from .***x to .zip
-
-
Unironically it will work as @Thorry84@feddit.nl and a bunch just like him has put in the work to Just WorkTM
-
Why does this even work though? WEBP and PNG are very different file formats yet for some reason this has always worked for me as well. Is windows automatically converting the files? I haven't checked if changing the file extension changes the file size.
-
WebP is an extended container around the RIFF file format, and contains the RIFF header info. So any container that is built off RIFF, or supports RIFF, can at least interpret the container data that is RIFF compatible and will lose anything that has been extended upon.
-
-
-
I'm working on a project which generates images in multiples sizes, and also converts to WEBP and AVIF.
The difference in file size is significant. It might not matter to you, but it matters to a lot of people.
Here's an example (the filename is the width):
Also, using the
<picture></picture>element, if the users' browsers don't support (or block) AVIF/WEBP, the original format is used. No harm in using them.(I know this is a meme post, but some people are taking it seriously)
-
I've mentioned this topic in regards to animated images, but don't see as big a reason to push for static formats due to the overall relatively limited benefits other than wider gamut and marginally smaller file size (percentage wise they are significant, but 2KB vs 200KB is paltry on even a terrible connection in the 2000s).
What I really wish is that we could get more browsers, sites, and apps to universally support more modern formats to replace the overly bloated terribly performing and never correctly pronounced animated formats like GIF with something else like AVIF, webm, webp (this was a roughly ~60MB GIF, and becomes a 1MB WEBP with better performance), or even something like APNG...
Besides wider gamut, and better performance, the sizes are actually significant on all but the fastest connections and save sites on both storage and bandwidth at significant scale compared to the mere KB of change that a static modern asset has.
This WEBP is only 800KB but only shows up on some server instances since not every Lemmy host supports embedding them :
-
It's pronounced GIF
-
but 2KB vs 200KB is paltry on even a terrible connection in the 2000s).
You still need to resize the images and choose the right ones (even if only for the device's performance).
So we might as well do that small extra step and add conversion to the process.
What I really wish is that we could get more browsers, sites, and apps to universally support more modern formats to replace the overly bloated terribly performing and never correctly pronounced animated formats like GIF with something else like AVIF, webm, webp (this was a roughly ~60MB GIF, and becomes a 1MB WEBP with better performance), or even something like APNG…
Isn't that the users' fault? And of the websites for allowing those huge GIFs.
Apparently browsers have supported MP4 for a long time.
-
-
But why webp over jxl
We already have the solution
-
Because jxl is a bunch of bollocks. There's no way it will gain any support any time soon.
-
Literally just today solved a problem of delivering analytics plots over our internal chat system. The file size limit is 28Kb and I was just getting ready to say screw it, can't be done.
Lo and behold our chat system that doesn't support svg does support webp. Even visually complicated charts come in just below the size limit with webp.
-
Just use jxl; it is better and not created by shitty googol.
-
I'm mad tho! I have technical issues with a format that works for hundreds of millions of users daily with the only impact being their website loads faster! RAGE!
-
How is the size difference after gzip compression? Probably pretty much the same, but I wonder how large the difference is then. Since a lot of folk make sure the contents is gzipped when served to the user.
-
Even using the highest compression levels, barely any difference. Not worth it
If I understand correctly gzip, brotli and similar are best used to compress text.
Font files also shouldn't be compressed. A TTF file compresses a bit, but a WOFF2 file will be even smaller than that (and WOFF2 also doesn't compress well). So might as well use WOFF/WOFF2
-
-
Is the quality the same? If so how do you know? I mean it's better, I'm just curious.
-
Tldr: as we deal with a problem long enough we find more effective ways of dealing with it
Has some info on what it does
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/JPEG_XL
Technically details might be more what you are looking for
https://jpegxl.info/resources/jpeg-xl-test-page
And a test page, if you don’t see jxl images then you should look at updating your browser
-
For most of the images that I tried you can only see differences with the images side by side. It's really subtle.
I do have one example for which my config must be bad, compresses a lot but introduces a lot of noise
-
-
-
I love webp though
-
wrong
-
That is because you are ignorant.
-
-
As someone who sometimes needs a quick and dirty stock image for my work, webp is the bane of my existence. The work computers won't let me visit sites or install programs/extensions to convert the image, and my document processing programs have no fucking clue what to do with the format. There is an option in Microsoft edge to edit image, and it will dump the result as a .png which is the only workaround I've found.
-
Samir ?
-
loled at how the name of the Chinese guy is just "generic Chinese name" put into Google Translate
-
Personal homepage is HTML 2.0 compliant - gold (and it keeps giving, too)
Great content from ages ago
-
They clearly hate printers, a safe assumption.
-
I had a colleague code a FFT algorithm in Excel because that was the only deployment tool the customer would be allowed to use...
-
-
I run Firefox portable with the extension "Save webp as PNG or JPEG". It has a button to copy directly to clipboard in the format of your choice.
-
So much this. I've completely forgotten about this issue since I've installed that extension.
-
-
I usually open it in paint and save as.
-
I usually screenshot it in place with alt-print screen, paste it into paint, crop it to size, and save
-
-
When I save as an image and it comes up as webp I just change the extension dropdown to all files and change the extension to .png in the filename box, hasn't failed for me yet
-
Does that actually change the file, or will it still break when your software can't handle webp? Because I did that to a webp, but Firefox still shows it's a webp (in the tab name), probably based on magic byte. I don't have any viewers that can't display webp though, and I think they're all smart enough to go by magic byte.
-
-
If you're on Windows you can just open picture in MSPaint, and save it as PNG.
Edit: You might need the WebP Extension though.
-
-
The funniest thing is that even some of Google's own products don't accept Webp, like Google Voice.
-
Shhhh just be happy Google Voice still exists, and isn't in the graveyard. Personally I'd take RCS over webp in Google Voice.
-
I feel with you. The product idea is awesome, the implementation is so-so, and progress is backwards. It's heart-breaking, really, and so sad nobody has a real alternative.
-
-
-
.jxl is the better image format anyway
-
.jxl is still early. Webp is out for 14 years now and if support is missing its completely on the ineptitude of the client and nothing else.
-
And it's not even a contest.
BTW, I only found out recently and by accident that my stock Gimp 2.10 supports it!-
Dude update your GIMP
-
-
Too bad it's being actively killed by Google. :(
-
Stop trying to make .webp happen. It’s not going to happen.
-
Maybe we should try to make it happen harder
-
They use it on their server side to save data, they don't give a rip if we don't use it. If they wanted us to use it, they'd have cancelled it already.
-
this post is so git fetch https://github.com/webmproject/libwebp
-
-
Just don't let Google kill JPEG XL.
-
webp is absofuckinglutely inferior to JPEG-XL and that one is where you actually have that problem. I’m literally providing an avif-fallback on my website, because otherwise pretty much no browser would support anything.
(Speaking of it, avif is also superior to webp.)
-
JPEG-XL is loads of bollocks.
-
for my use cases of memes or a PowerPoint type thing once in a while for school. Literally any image format works for me. I don't care about quality (as long as it's not REALLY bad) and just want to get the image from Google to the PowerPoint, and somehow GOOGLES own image format fails to work for GOOGLES PowerPoint product.
I don't understand how you can not support your own format 10 years after it came out.pro tip by the way, you can open it in Microsoft paint then "save as -> .PNG" to get Google slides/whatever to accept it.
(before someone recommends alternatives, im talking about use on a locked down school computer. I can't use alternative software that's better because they block images in WIKIPEDIA, no shot for using an actual foss software lmao)
-
You don’t even have to open it in Microsoft paint, you can just save it as a new format from the standard image viewer software.
-
Plus, it makes a bunch of users resort to adding extensions to their browser such as
"Save webP as PNG or JPEG 1.5.4"
which is fine but absolutely not as secure as without extensions.
-
Ask your boss if you can install GIMP
-
"It works just like regular image formats, but it's fun."
-
No webp for me, just because Google is pushig it and that is suspect.
-
Lol it's like 10 years old at this point. Not sure they're pushing it anymore. I think files that are half the size sell themselves
-
-
fucking Telegram automatically converts any webp sent in a message to a fucking sticker
I didn't want that. I want the ability to view the image, including zooming in and panning, and telegram forcing it into a sticker kills that completely
-
I came to bitch about the same thing.
-
This looks like the most relevant bug on Telegram's bug tracker for the issue: https://bugs.telegram.org/c/4360
-
-
-
in my honest opinion, it’s a real shame that webp isn’t widely supported. it’s actually really great: it has awesome lossless compression, it’s so much smaller than a png while not losing any quality, it supports animation and loops, etc. it’s like jpg, png, and gif rolled into one format.
-
it’s like jpg, png, and gif rolled into one format.
and therein lies the problem.
one tool should do one thing, and do it well.
-
-
Wait am I the only one who actually likes WEBP and is cheering for JPEG to finally die ? 😭
-
Webp can die. JpegXL is better in every metric and can losslessly compress existing jpeg images. The chromium team has been notably trying to kill JXL because they spent so much time on AVIF and Webp despite neither offer anything close to JXL.
-
If webp didn't come from google I might cheer it. I refuse to adopt any standard made by google if I can help it. If google made it, they made it with some reason or ability to alter it that's nefarious and anti consumer. They wouldn't make an improved open standard that wasn't going to allow them to do shady shit.
-
They made it because better image compression means less storage is required for images. Even if it's a small upgrade, over trillions of images or exabytes of data saved translates into millions of dollars saved. This is the same thing for the delta format as another example
By making .webp an open standard, more people will use it, thus more space savings will be had by default
-
-
No, I've heard there is dozens of you, dozens!
-
-
Lemmy uses webp for profile pics.
-
Now try to find somewhere which accepts apng or mng. I'll wait. ;)
-
I have never heard of those formats.
-
My point exactly.
-
-
Just checked, our very corporate and much antiquated website does accept apng (sadly not publicly visible as it's b2b only). We do deal with photography though, so we do expect multitude of formats and mostly either pass them unchanged or just feed them to ImageMagick and forget about it. The bane of our existence is mostly DNG which Adobe breaks every year or so by introducing breaking spec changes.
EDIT: Haven't found a place to even get an mng sample, though. Do you have any?
-
MNG is a bit of an oddity; it was originally supposed to replace GIF but was itself replaced with PNG, Flash, and SVG. I have no such files available but ImageMagick can supposedly make one out of a number of PNG or JPG files if you're interested in toying with it.
-
-
-
Tbh, for myself I either want lossless (eg. professional photographs for an app) or don't care about size, due to small volume (eg. my own pics and vids) and also kinda want the originals. And in today's time, bandwidth isn't lacking (for most people, including me). So everything's just a png.
-
Oooh baby I like RAW
-
Always save as RAW
-
Not just any RAW, but a multi exposure DNG!
-
-
As is in the name, the format is meant for web.
-
-
What is being implied here? That Website A encourages you to download an image from them in WEBP format, but you cannot then upload that image to Websites B through Z because those sites do not support WEBP?
-
Yes
-
Not just websites, but software as well. Like image editing software. Which is quite bad.
-
Here's the original clip from The Simpsons episode: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g4XZxHXSHko
-
-
Not the fault of the format
-
No, it is googol's fault. Fuck googol.
-
-
Real men use .ico
-
Relevant XKCD
-
That’s basically how Lemmy clients work. No, there are 14 Lemmy clients! Ridiculous, we need one universal Lemmy client… there are 15 Lemmy clients.
-
@moseschrute
Beautiful Lemmy client
@Oaksey @memes
-
-
I mean... most websites don't use .bmp and that's for a reason... that reason being that it sucks ass.
-
-
The real difference is between gif and animated webp... Even fewer places accept animated webp than normal webp and those that do often don't even show it right (looking at you slack emojis) which is a travesty as the file size difference is huge
-
Yeah, man, gotta use mozjpeg.
-
skill issue
-
How many people that are clinging to JPEG are also hating anti-AI people for being "Luddites"?
-
It seems I pissed off the right kind of people yet again.
"Anti genAI? Move on with the times, boomer!" and then "Why is image not deep fried and can't be opened in Real Shit Movie Editor 2003?". (Note: genAI is boomer technology.)
-
-
I hate it so much. Just stick to jpg.
187 留言