Webp
Webp
209 comments
-
-
WebP has all the functionality of jpg, png, and gif while still being a smaller filesize. It has baseline support across browsers and devices. I'm no Google simp and work to de-google my family and workplace but this is a hill I will die on. Webp currently the best image file format.
-
If loser companies would support it I'd say AV1 Image File Format (AVIF) is the best.
-
Webp currently the best image file format.
Out of the widely supported ones, it's quite good, yeah. Overall, I'd say JPEG XL is the better one. Ironically, only Safari supports it out of the box. Firefox requires a Nightly version with tweaking in
about:config. Chrome used to have a feature flag, but has since removed it.-
The website mentions
Migrating to JPEG XL reduces storage costs because servers can store a single JPEG XL file to serve both JPEG and JPEG XL clients.
Does anyone know how that works?
-
I think compatibility was also being taken into account here. When not looking at compatibility, JXL is the best hands down. It's criminal how little software supports it.
-
-
It is. The sentiment comes from majority of Americans using Apple operating systems, which refused to support WebP until recently.
-
-
.JXL for the win
-
Webp's purpose is to display images on web pages in a format that allows fast loading and rendering. When a user downloads or views an image it should be served in a better format. Webp serves it's purpose perfectly. Don't try to download a background of a webpage with the expectation that it will be in a format that is not beneficial to the pages function.
-
When a user downloads or views an image it should be served in a better format.
tell that to google chrome
-
I believe they've made the point that it's not chrome's fault, but the site's/user's - images displayed on websites should be webp to benefit from optimizations for displaying images, but download links should be a different format. The error would be either the user downloading the images from the display instead of the download (including from sites that do not offer images for downloading purposes?), or the website not including separate versions for download where relevant.
I'm not necessarily sure if that's a good take, but that's my interpretation of what's being said.
-
-
-
This meme needs more artifacts
-
may i introduce you to our lord and saviour: Don't "Accept" image/webp
-
Ah yes, this addon will make a fine addition to my collection.
-
-
At this point I think Facebook messenger and internet explorer are the only ones that don't support it. Oh and maybe the ISS.
-
WebP was created in 2010, and the ISS switched to Linux in 2013. So there is a possibility that at least one piece of software that's running up there supports WebP.
-
-
The first part is wrong. And the second part is mostly wrong. Stop whining
Pro tip: If discord is complaing your screenshots are too large convert them to avif or webp. Now you don't need nitro
-
I have never had a screenshot exceeding 40 MB. That is humongous.
-
Screenshoting modded minecraft on a 4k panel does it reliably for me
-
If you screenshot computer/phone interfaces (text, buttons, lots of flat colors with adjacent pixels the exact same color), the default PNG algorithm does a great job of keeping the file size small. If you screenshot a photograph, though, the PNG algorithm makes the file size huge, because it's just really poorly optimized for re-encoding images that are already JPG.
-
What if I want to screenshot my cocaine-fueled rant to my ex and mistakenly send it to said ex instead of my homies?
-
-
-
Webp has both a lossy and lossless mode so the first part of this meme is lost on me
-
I guess that was the lossy part :)
-
| | | | | | _
-
-
-
webp is a fine format, blame the websites that disallow webp upload, but then proceed to convert the image to webp anyway
-
I blame Google for killing JPEG XL in favor of webp
-
< Insert XKCD comic strip about new standards here >
-
Cloudflare zero trust apps allow webp images on initial creation, then arbitrarily disallow webp on edit. You can’t edit until you replace the image you already uploaded, and the system accepted.
-
My favorite are sites that convert gifs to mp4s that are then displayed as animated webps.
-
-
Never understood why jepgXL didn’t win out
-
It's slowly marching along with the reimplementation of its reference decoder in rust. That should hopefully satisfy google and mozilla's demands and get them to adopt it in their browsers.
-
-
Webp is good and this meme is shit and played out
-
its interesting to me that this is only really an issue on proprietary OS's (mac/windows) as i've never had an issue with any image or video formats when using linux. i use all three but linux is my primary OS. mac/windows mostly stay at work.
-
OS doesn't affect what web servers accept webp, which is 90% of the use case for most people. The vast majority of people use computers as a web browser only
-
I grew up on macOS, until a few years ago where I actually had my own personal computer for the first time, which had windows pre installed, so i used that and like it a lot more than macOS, i just felt so much more free, and the general workflow felt more intuitive to me, then, early this year, i switched to Linux and there’s no way in hell I’ll ever go back. In just a couple months I learned more about how computers worked than I did over something like 12 years of using computers as a teen. It’s really crazy to me how once you get something set up on Linux, it just works, and all of the documentation is open and detailed!
-
Os X has supported webp for years.
-
-
DAT and DDC were great as well. Beta too. But sometimes good enough (like JPG and VHS) is good enough.
-
Yeah, let's stick with obsolete (JPEG) formats, so no one needs to improve their loaders (very hard), and people can continue to use that funny video editor that came with some old version of Windows without converters (very evil, Irfanview does not have the same meme potential as WinRAR).
-
betacam was better than vhs, and was used in the broadcasting industry. It was better than vhs.
Betamax, which is the one you're talking about, is not the same format, and actually equal to or slightly inferior to vhs.
-
-
-
wdym "terrible quality loss"; for one their lossless beats PNG
-
They had a better joke, but they converted it to a Webp and lost the punchline.
-
This depends, if your image contains a lot of flat colours (like a screenshot of a website) then PNG can actually give you smaller file sizes than lossless webp. But for most images (especially ones with compression artefacts) lossless webp gives smaller sizes.
-
But that’s not got anything to do with quality. That’s compression size
-
But for most images (especially ones with compression artefacts) lossless webp gives smaller sizes.
And if you already have compression artifacts, what use is lossless?
Only time you would want it is when you are uploading comparison photos specifically showing compression artifacts created from some other compression result.
That's a bit to niche to make it worthwhile.
-
-
-
I actually use it for creating thumbnails for a sorta niche application. The resulting files are quite small and the quality is fine. I do remember it being a pain in the ass to deal with ~10 years ago.
-
I really don't get the WebP hate, it's a good format. It's better than PNG and JPG.
-
personally:
- forced to be a thing by google
- bad-ish support in some applications or places even to this day
- always used to further reduce filesizes which means you are most of the time transcoding lossy jpgs and making them more lossy (lemmy is specially into this), which means that the alleged better quality is actually useless
jxl would make a better replacement for this last thing since you can losslessly transcody jpgs with ~20% filesize and in my testing, pngs with ~50% (though jxl lossless decoding is cpu heavy right now), lossless transcoding also means you could keep jxls in server, then give it to the client if it supports jxl, or transcode back to jpg if they don't (this saves bandwidth and storage at the cost of some cpu usage, but jpg transcoding is really fast and you can cache highly used images)
-
Though you couldn't set the bar any lower without it turning into a joke.
Anyhow, to quote Wikipedia:
Comparing different encodings (JPEG, x264, and WebP) of a reference image, she stated that the quality of the WebP-encoded result was the worst of the three, mostly because of blurriness on the image. [...] In October 2013, Josh Aas from Mozilla Research published a comprehensive study of current lossy encoding techniques and was not able to conclude that WebP outperformed JPEG by any significant margin
All while having significantly increased complexity. The blurriness problem was inherited from the video codec webp was based on. When you can't beat an 18 years old format, don't be surprised when people get irritated when you use your position to get it mandated into a standard, while later stalling actual improvements (JPEG XL).
-
PNG is lossless, so isn't that like comparing apples to oranges?
Edit: Apparently webp can also be lossless. I don't know anything.
-
It's just tech illiterate being "oh no my image program not open this 10 year old new format"
-
-
Yes, I would like to waste 500 KB over the wire for an image of indistinguishable quality
-
I hate that Messenger doesn't support webp. Makes sharing from Lemmy quite annoying. Signal takes webp though, no prob.
-
I screen shot and crop every meme i want to share from Lemmy. It is tedious.
-
I have a better solution that I found out by accident.
So you initiate the sharing, right, then before you select the Messenger app (or whichever app that doesn't handle webp), you click the little edit button on the image above the shareable apps. That brings up cropping and other adjustments. But from here, you can just hit the big Share button immediately to share the image practically losslessly (without cropping mistakes and such). It brings up the share thing again but this time the image will be in a shareable format, presumably PNG(?).
Spread the word!
(This is on Android btw.)
-
-
-
JPG-XL crying in the corner.
-
If Jpeg-XL was backwards compatible with older clients, it would probably take off. Like if the format embedded a standard jpeg image in the front readable by older clients, and then enhanced it with additional data at end of file readable by Jpeg-XL clients.
-
Sitting next to JPEG-2000
-
-
What - doesn’t - support webp at this point? P much all maintained open source software has for years upon years, os x has for years, Android and iOS have for ages as well, even windows added support a year ago or so supposedly.
Like are these memes made by confused time travelers?
-
even windows added support a year ago or so supposedly
You answered your own question. I spent years playing the game of "This image is a JPEG. Will the website force me to save it in a format that can't be opened by the basic Windows photo viewer, or will it actually be a JPEG when I download it?"
You'd be surprised how often it would turn out to be the former rather than the latter.
-
Windows photo viewer sucks, that’s your problem
Nomacs is a better alternative. Not perfect, but FOSS and faster than windows https://nomacs.org/
-
-
This meme is out of date.
-
complains about lossy format
\ meme uses lossless imageAm disappoint
-
To be clear, webp isn’t even a lossy format. I mean, it can be, but it can also be lossless.
-
-
so sad to see so many google simps blinding defending this crap
-
Webp supports lossless compression. It's even better than .PNG in that regard.
I also have rarely found it to not work. Like the only things I can think of off the top of my head is that the basic Microsoft image viewer that comes standard on Windows won't open them and also how some websites will force an animated .gif to be saved as a webp, making it a static image. Even though I am pretty sure webp also supports animation.
-
JPEG also supports lossless compression.
-
JPEG also supports lossless compression.
Technically, the spec does require it, but given that we're in a thread about ecosystem support for a file format that's approaching its 15th birthday, it's worth considering how many image viewers will actually be able to work without the DCT step that is the essence of what typical JPEG does.
I don't have a Windows machine handy to test, but it's entirely possible that maybe lossless JPEG won't display in its default viewer.
-
Does it? Paint doesn't seem to use it. Even saving something uncompressed adds artifacts that don't exist in the raw.
-
-
.webp has virtually no support when it comes to software/apps that can edit images, it's always either a "file format not supported", or absolutely no reaction or acknowledgement that you tried doing something
-
On windows maybe. Never ran into that on Linux. I understand it's inconvenient but that's not the format's fault, it's windows developers'.
-
Blame the software for lack of support, not the format. Webp has been around for over a decade at this point and is only growing in significance, and it's an open source standard. No excuse for software to not support it.
-
What software are you using? I'm mainly using free and open source ones, they all can open it.
-
-
-
For me it's HEIF. I love it because it's smaller and higher quality than JPEG, but literally nothing supports this format. It's annoying that I have to convert to JPEG or PNG to do anything with my images. Luckily HEVC seems to get more support on the video end of things.
-
HEVC is proprietary.
AV1 is what we need. And a lot of newer hardware finally supports it.
-
AV1 is for video though? JPEG-XL is patent-free, better performant than most or all alternatives, and made for images.
-
Exactly, it seems to be common for new people to think hevc is just like avc but better. It is a format that is just a pain to work with, and is barely supported as compared to h264.
Even streaming services are sick of that format and rather use h264 or AV1.
-
-
Takes forever to encode though
-
Yeah, almost as long as AV1, depending upon settings.
-
-
-
And it's more of a video format than an image format, lots of juicy attack surface
-
16 CVE's for libjpeg just last year: https://app.opencve.io/cve/?vendor=jpeg
-
Sounds like avif
-
JXL is the rightful heir to the throne and none of these treasonous corporate usurpers in the court can convince me otherwise. I'll never bow to the Webp or Avif factions. While it looks bleak, I pray the crown finds its way to the head of the true king. Long live the Jpeg bloodline!
But really, webp was pushed because it supports DRM and avif is an implementation detail turned feature afterthought just because webp adoption sucked as much as the format does. I love AV1 for video but avif isn't fit for purpose and webp is garbo. I really wish they didn't take jpegxl out behind the shed for no good reason... It has some awesome engineering.
-
AVIF is funny because they kept the worst aspects of WebP (lossy video based encoding), while removing the best (lossless mode) There was an attempt at WebP2, using AV1 and a proper lossless mode, but Google killed that off as well.
But hey, now that they're releasing AV2 soon, we'll eventually have an incompatible AVIF2 to deal with. Good thing they didn't support JPEG-XL, it'd just be too confusing to have to deal with multiple formats.
-
-
-
Not my fault that peoples pirated copy of Photoshop CS5 can't open it.
-
Better to just use gimp at this point surely?
-
I use Krita, and it can open it.
-
-
-
I'm noticing that a lot of my memes are auto saved as webps, what can I convert these into so as to be most compatible and least likely to offend those that care about file formats?
-
I mean, if we're being realistic, everything I use supports .webp now. Hell, every upload on my instance Blajåj becomes one (not Lemmy universal, as noted by SatyrSack)
-
Hell, every upload on Lemmy becomes one
That is something set by your instance admin. lemmy.sdf.org actually automatically converts uploaded WEBP files to PNG. It's just up to what the admin wants.
-
Oh, I forgot webp supported transparency.
Guess it has something over jpg.
-
-
I'd recommend webp
Everything supports it and it can be lossy or lossless as needed.
-
What? Why does this meme say it's not compatible with anything then? Did I get trolled?
-
-
also if you only view them and don't care about editing them you can straight up rename the *.webp to *.jpg
it'll still open as a jpg outside of your browser, but it apps that you'd use for image editing still won't want it
-
Iirc that means it'll stay a webp, some program will just fail to open them and the once that can only do it because they recognize the file header and therefore disregard your file extension shenanigans.
What I'm saying is if you do that it's funny but also completely useless.
-
That is not how file conversion works
-
-
On the other hand, if you just want to make people uneasy and some even angry, you can just use and share bitmaps.
-
Png, if you don't care about size. If you do care about size, you're an asshole if you use anything but webp right now.
-
-
Someone remarked that in film photography, every 10 years, Kodak used to get the brilliant idea that 35mm film is just too complicated for Your Average Consumer, and invented a new "easy to load" cartridge based film format. 126 Instamatic in the 1960s, 110 Pocket Instamatic in the 1970s, Disc Film in the 1980s and the APS in the 1990s. ...Meanwhile, Your Average Consumer didn't give much damn, and while these formats saw some use, most people preferred 35mm.
Same goes with image formats. Apple and Google and Microsoft try to make "better" file formats happen, and I'm sure they have their advantages, but people will stick with JPEG, thanks.
-
It's not "people" who are causing the proliferation of formats like webp though, it's the web industry.
If you are a web platform, you want a format that gives you acceptable quality for the smallest size to reduce your bandwidth. You also want one that loads as fast as possible from a CPU prospective, so your site renders as fast as possible.
These are factors webp was designed for.
To your point, for home users jpeg remains a good-enough choice with no reason to change it. A preferred choice even, due to broad legacy compatibility. But we aren't seeing proliferation of webp because people are at home willingly going "file -> export as -> webp" - no, we're seeing it because industry is converting uploads to it, and people are saving those images.
-
These are factors webp was designed for.
I thought it was designed so that Google could continue to de-facto own the web.
-
-
most people preferred 35mm
an easy choice when you consider disc cameras had terrible resolution; the instamatic at least had 35mm frames and were tremendously popular with non-photographers - think the cop that needs to take a picture of some trash - for a decade +...
and there was just so much 35mm gear available everywhere. a friend has 2 entire nikon kits from his dad's tour in vietnam, with some classic telephoto and specialty lenses and filters, he bought it on a lark while visiting singapore on leave.
-
-
Webp can be lossy or lossless though, and what kind of shitty apps are you using that don't support it?
-
Google Docs etc. Lol.
-
It's like complaining jpeg is compressed with PNG isn't? It's the creator who decides.
-
-
hmm, I usually just change the .webp extension to .png, and most of the time, image viewers just open it without issue.
-
This doesn't change it to a png, but your image viewers recognize it as webp. You should just associate .wepb with your image viewer in the OS.
-
yeah, I figured as much. I guess even seeing the .webp extension bugs me so much that I can't even stand the sight of it.
-
Worse is when the image viewer uses a DLL that could read WebP, but the lazy devs wouldn't add it to the file association list. Heard at least one case of intentional sabotage, because WebP did not work on a social media site.
-
-
-
That's disgusting.
-
-
Forget webp. AVIF is the image format.
(Especially after Google killed JPEG-XL.)
-
Google didn't kill JPEG XL. It might have set browser support back some, but there's still a place for JPEG XL to take over.
All the modern video-derived formats (webp, heif/heic, avif) tend to be optimized for screen resolutions. But for print photography (including just plain old regular photography that wants to keep the option open of maybe printing some of the images eventually), the higher resolutions and higher quality stretches the limits of where those codecs actually perform well (in terms of file sizes, perceived quality, computational power of coding or decoding).
JPEG XL knocks the other modern images out of the water at those print resolutions and color spaces and quality. It's not just for photography, either: medical imaging, archiving, printing, etc., all use much higher resolutions that what is supported on any screen.
And perhaps most importantly for future support, the iPhone now supports taking images in JPEG XL. If that becomes a dominant format for photographic workflows, to replace stuff like DNG and other raw formats, browser support won't hold back the format's adoption.
-
I will forever support JPEGXL. AV1 is a good video codec, not that good for imgaes.
Google may have killed it on the web but it's slowly gaining support in other places where webp never had any
-
Oh wow, Mozilla reconsidered JXL support. They said no after Google pulled out, but “now” (well, since an entire year ago) they’re at half a yes again.
https://github.com/mozilla/standards-positions/pull/1064
https://github.com/libjxl/jxl-rs
Edit: neat, it has recently landed in the Firefox codebase: https://phabricator.services.mozilla.com/D263393
Still behind a flag, but Apple seems to have decided for JXL, and Mozilla seems to have gotten their mind made up and following suit.
-
Glad to hear JPEG-XL is still making its way. It deserves to become the most widespread image format.
Regarding web usage after the Google situation:
I do disagree about AV1. Its AVIF image format spinoff is very good. Often better quality or smaller file size than webp, and has browser support as good as webp nowadays. And of course,
I work on a lot of web projects, and I used to serve webp and AVIF for a while (based on the browser’s HTTP
Acceptheader). Recently, I decommissioned all webp handling and serving code.See https://caniuse.com/?search=image+format. You can serve an AVIF for every requested JPEG or PNG file.
-
-
Better than PNG?
-
-
Seriously who started this horseshit trend??
-
Google.
-
-
Somewhat related: Does anyone know why so many of the images uploaded to Lemmy are GIFs? Or at least download in that format when using Sync? It's kind of annoying because they aren't animated, they are completely static images, and all that does is cause problems with sending them in other apps. I frequently have to download an image, take a screenshot of it, and crop it to the original size again.
-
Also, why so many comments about gifs that don't use it's multi image slideshow functionality. And why are the times between images set so fast these days. I can't appreciate each image the author spent time to include.
-
-
I've been using primarily webp for like half a decade and I haven't noticed many compatibility issues or bad quality. I guess if your software hasn't been updated in the past decade it won't work, but in that case I guess we should never make a new image format again?
-
Avif
-
I see avif online now and then. Almost as much as png.
-
-
Lol, this is a braindead post. Truly stupid.
-
Funny as almost all image will end up showing in a small rectangle on a small phone screen.
It could be RAW, WMF or WEBP most humans couldn’t care less when it just works. 😜
209 comments
it supports transparency and produces small file sizes compared to PNG while looking pretty similarly. fuck Microsoft in particular for not supporting it.