• Eager Eagle@lemmy.worldEnglish
    791·
    13 days ago

    webp is a fine format, blame the websites that disallow webp upload, but then proceed to convert the image to webp anyway

    • Jean-luc Peak-hard@piefed.socialEnglish
      181·
      13 days ago

      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.

      • guynamedzero@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        3·
        12 days ago

        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!

        • AnUnusualRelic@lemmy.world
          1·
          12 days ago

          While all of that is true, the thing is that most people just don’t care. They just use two or three programs (poorly) and don’t really care about the underlying system, never mind the computer. That’s why windows is so entrenched.

          • hornywarthogfart@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
            1·
            12 days ago

            Windows is mostly so entrenched because Microsoft applied monopolistic practices in the 90’s to ensure it was the most used operating system thereby cementing their place for decades to come.

            Then, they applied monopolistic practices in the cloud industry to ensure vendor lock-in at the OS level with their most popular services (like Office).

            You are right that most people just don’t care though. I don’t blame them, there is enough stress in the world.

    • reddig33@lemmy.worldEnglish
      3·
      13 days ago

      DAT and DDC were great as well. Beta too. But sometimes good enough (like JPG and VHS) is good enough.

    • flamingos-cant (hopepunk arc)@feddit.ukEnglish
      9·
      13 days ago

      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.

      • ulterno@programming.devEnglish
        01·
        12 days ago

        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.

        • GamingChairModel@lemmy.world
          0·
          11 days ago

          And if you already have compression artifacts, what use is lossless?

          To further reduce file size without further reducing quality.

          There are probably billions of jpeg files out there in the world already encoded in lossy JPEG, with no corresponding higher quality version actually available (e.g., the camera that captures the image and immediately saves it as JPEG). We shouldn’t simply accept that those file sizes are going to forever be stuck, and can think through codecs that further compress the file size losslessly from there.

  • qaz@lemmy.worldEnglish
    254·
    12 days ago

    I really don’t get the WebP hate, it’s a good format. It’s better than PNG and JPG.

    • Laser@feddit.org
      131·
      12 days ago

      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 stalking actual improvements (JPEG XL).

      • lemmyknow@lemmy.today
        11·
        12 days ago

        Is JXL in actual use? Is it supported? I reckon it’s quite new, innit? D’you happen to.know how it compares to its peers?

        • Laser@feddit.org
          11·
          12 days ago

          It’s not supported by either Chromium or Firefox, which is part of the issue (Google basically decided against it with arguments that are much better suited against WebP, which they pushed some years ago).

          There aren’t that many static image codec comparisons, for example there is https://giannirosato.com/blog/post/image-comparison/. https://afontenot.github.io/image-formats-comparison/ doesn’t even include WebP because the test suite uses features unsupported by it (YUV 4:4:4). In the ones I do find, WebP usually wins against good JPEG at low bitrates, but loses on high bitrates because of the blurriness issue. They both get beaten by JPEG XL and AVIF. Which one is better probably depends on whom you ask. The before linked comparison prefers JPEG XL by a slim margin, https://tonisagrista.com/blog/2023/jpegxl-vs-avif/ strongly favors JPEG XL.

    • Dr. Moose@lemmy.worldEnglish
      92·
      12 days ago

      It’s just tech illiterate being “oh no my image program not open this 10 year old new format”

    • BunScientist@lemmy.zipEnglish
      2·
      11 days ago

      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)

    • prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      2·
      12 days ago

      PNG is lossless, so isn’t that like comparing apples to oranges?

      Edit: Apparently webp can also be lossless. I don’t know anything.

        • filcuk@lemmy.zip
          3·
          12 days ago

          Practically never because it’s rubbish. The only possible use is on old precision machines that don’t support newer standards, like medical imaging.

  • Psythik@lemmy.world
    191·
    13 days ago

    For me it’s HEIF. I love it because it’s smaller and higher quality than JPEG, but literally nothing supports this formatted. 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.

      • sleen@lemmy.zipEnglish
        0·
        12 days ago

        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.

        • ProgrammingSocks@pawb.social
          1·
          12 days ago

          Honestly I just don’t like how HEVC compression ends up looking. It looks like everything has had noise added and then smoothed over, and I can always see it. AV1 or AVC are also my personal pics. AV1 for filesize and AVC for compatibility.

  • Unlearned9545@lemmy.world
    17·
    11 days ago

    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.

    • Kilgore Trout@feddit.it
      6·
      11 days ago

      It is. The sentiment comes from majority of Americans using Apple operating systems, which refused to support WebP until recently.

    • Dumhuvud@programming.devEnglish
      5·
      11 days ago

      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.

      • brachypelmide@lemmy.zip
        1·
        11 days ago

        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.

      • fdnomad@programming.dev
        0·
        11 days ago

        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?

    • Zetta@mander.xyz
      4·
      11 days ago

      If loser companies would support it I’d say AV1 Image File Format (AVIF) is the best.

  • mostlikelyaperson@lemmy.world
    161·
    12 days ago

    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?

  • 🇰 🌀 🇱 🇦 🇳 🇦 🇰 🇮 @pawb.socialEnglish
    152·
    13 days ago

    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.

    • shneancy@lemmy.world
      56·
      13 days ago

      .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

      • azertyfun@sh.itjust.works
        1·
        12 days ago

        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’.

      • Prinz Kasper@feddit.org
        11·
        12 days ago

        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.

  • yardratianSoma@lemmy.ca
    9·
    13 days ago

    hmm, I usually just change the .webp extension to .png, and most of the time, image viewers just open it without issue.

    • hperrin@lemmy.caEnglish
      11·
      12 days ago

      Because Google didn’t invent it, and Google decides what does and doesn’t get added to the Internet.

      • lengau@midwest.social
        61·
        12 days ago

        Google were literally one of the three organisations who worked on the standard, and the top contributor to the reference implementation works there.

        • hperrin@lemmy.caEnglish
          91·
          12 days ago

          And then they killed it. It was Google pulling support in Chrome that killed JPEG-XL’s momentum.

          It was the Joint Picture Experts Group that invented it, so Google had no ownership over it, unlike WebP.

          Google’s stance on JPEG XL is ambiguous, as it has contributed to the format but refrained from shipping an implementation of it in its browser. Support in Chromium and Chromeweb browsers was introduced for testing April 1, 2021[29] and removed on December 9, 2022 – with support removed in version 110.[30][31]The Chrome team cited a lack of interest from the ecosystem, insufficient improvements, and a wish to focus on improving existing formats as reasons for removing JPEG XL support.[29][32][30]

          - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JPEG_XL

          • GamingChairModel@lemmy.world
            1·
            11 days ago

            It was the Joint Picture Experts Group that invented it, so Google had no ownership over it, unlike WebP.

            No, JPEG called for submission of proposals to define the new standard, and Google submitted its own PIK format, which provided much of the basis for what would become the JXL standard (the other primary contribution being Cloudinary’s FUIF).

            Ultimately, I think most of the discussion around browser support thinks too small. Image formats are used for web display, sure, but they’re also used for so many other things. Digital imaging is used in medicine (where TIFF dominates), print, photography, video, etc.

            I’m excited about JPEG XL as a replacement for TIFF and raw photography sensor data, including for printing and medical imaging. WebP, AVIF, HEIF, etc. really are only aiming for replacing web distributed images on a screen.

            • hperrin@lemmy.caEnglish
              21·
              11 days ago

              So Google contributed to it, but ultimately didn’t invent it and doesn’t own it. In other words, what I said.

              As opposed to WebP, which not only do they own, they also own several patents for. They offer a patent license that is conditional on not suing them. So they basically own and control WebP. They do not own, nor do they control, JPEG-XL. Google owns patents that cover a portion of JPEG-XL, but don’t have full control.

    • Strawberry@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      3·
      11 days ago

      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.

    • AnyOldName3@lemmy.world
      1·
      11 days ago

      The compression technique it used was patented, and the licence fee was extortionate. By the time the patent expired, other, royalty-free, techniques were available that outperformed it.