webp is a fine format, blame the websites that disallow webp upload, but then proceed to convert the image to webp anyway
< 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.
I blame Google for killing JPEG XL in favor of webp
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
Lossless encoding, by definition, won’t have any quality loss.
Watch some startup “invent” a revolutionary lossless format that discards some information.
Fuuuuuck. There goes another business idea. 😂
did that ages ago
That’s the point of revolution, no?
Going back to something that was in the past, except giving it a new name and context:P
Huh? The OP literally said “their lossless beats png” and then you proceeded to talk about file size which wasn’t ever part of the conversation. The conversation was about quality.
deleted by creator
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.deleted by creator
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.
Wait, so lossless webp manages to be smaller than even lossy jpg, while also having to losslessly reproduce jpeg artifacts, which tends to otherwise greatly increase file sizes (as compared to the original lossless file) in lossless formats?
JPEG XL has a mode for losslessly encoding any lossy JPEG into a smaller file size without any loss of quality. Wikipedia has some description of general approaches for losslessly encoding JPEG files further.
I don’t know if webp uses any of these tricks, but I don’t see why it would be hard to imagine that compression artifacts from a 30-year-old format can be encoded more efficiently today.
Lossless is fine, lossy is worse than JPEG.
If someone chooses lossy they deserve whatever torture they receive.
Unfortunately most people don’t really have a choice in the matter. It’s sites like twitter that crunch images to hell and back on upload that choose for us.
Choose life don’t use webbed sites that use lossy webps
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.
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!
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.
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.
Os X has supported webp for years.
yeah macOS supports webp now (since ~2020), but it lacked support for a decade, causing frustration for its users and anyone trying to support macOS/Safari.
DAT and DDC were great as well. Beta too. But sometimes good enough (like JPG and VHS) is good enough.
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.
I know what Betamax is.
That’s not actually true. Technology connections made a few videos about it.
Beta bs VHS: https://youtu.be/hWl9Wux7iVY
The broadcasting Beta format was basically a whole different format compared to that you could get at home. Completely unrelated.
Studio Beta https://youtu.be/hGVVAQVdEOs
isn’t that exactly what i said? Betacam (studio) vs betamax (consumer)
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).
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.
That’d just be overall worse, it’d never be smaller than a comparable JPEG image, and it wouldn’t allow for any compression/quality benefits.
You could compress the hell out of the traditional jpeg codec/layer part of the image. It’d be there for backwards compatibility. It only has to be readable by older clients and “acceptable” quality.
See “49kb” example here — totally acceptable image quality for backwards compatibility.
Sitting next to JPEG-2000
> 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.
Quality loss? Webp supports lossless.
So does JPEG. It doesn’t mean that people (will) use it for that.
Actually? I didnt know that. Is it used often? Any downsides ?
Practically never because it’s rubbish. The only possible use is on old precision machines that don’t support newer standards, like medical imaging.
The posting of webps will continue until support improves.
Is webps just webp with SSL ? 😏
No, it’s a new format remember?
So TLS, maybeAh right. It should be TLS, and it may be SSL for future backward compatibility, sometimes resulting in corrupted images without warning.
I really don’t get the WebP hate, it’s a good format. It’s better than PNG and JPG.
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).
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?
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.
It’s just tech illiterate being “oh no my image program not open this 10 year old new format”
PNG is lossless, so isn’t that like comparing apples to oranges?
Edit: Apparently webp can also be lossless. I don’t know anything.
JPEG-XL exists, is factually better, and is not patent encumbered.
How is WebP “patent encumbered”? It’s an open format.
Open is not the same as patent-free, the two things can coexist (and they do in the case of webp).
It’s open to write the code, but in order to be authorized to use it you have to get a permit from Google. You can’t eg.: fork from Firefox and use their permit (as you implicitly could with patent-free). Plus, Google can rescind their patent grant at any point, which they are bound to do once they secure ownership of the internet.
That’s just not true.
Thanks for taking the time to disprove this
Yes, but that is actually almost “incompatible with every app and website”
A file format can not, by itself, be “incompatible” with a website. What matters is the browser, and Firefox at least is adding support (slowly), and they are the ones who matter ATM.
does jpeg xl support animated images?
It does, yes, but from what I gather it’s rather difficult to actually encode such an animated image compared to, say, a GIF. Display should work just fine.
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.
Does it? Paint doesn’t seem to use it. Even saving something uncompressed adds artifacts that don’t exist in the raw.
You mean the Microsoft made program?
Yeah. I would imagine a better program actually has lossless compression if the format can do that. Like I mentioned initially, their own image viewer can’t even open WebP; but using the old one from XP/Vista opens them fine. 🤷♂️
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.
.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.
photoshop & davinci resolve
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?
It’s often a nightmare when sharing to chat apps to show friends memes etc
a) send links instead of polluting my storage with garbage, please
b) use Signal, it does webpFor the first point, I’m just going to throw out that sending the content can be preferable given how likely the link is to go dead eventually. There are a number of things I can no longer find because of this although it is admittedly an edge case.
Well yeah, but for memes, longevity isn’t really a priority.
It somewhat is for me, my partner takes days or weeks to click my links.
Sounds rough
Nah it’s pretty normal. You’re not always in the mood, maybe you receive a lot of content from other people as well
Well, yeah, but for memes longevity isn’t really a priority imo.
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/
most people don’t want to install thirp party stuff for basic stuff that the system comes with
Then you will never be a power user
Can’t go far with the defaults, on everything
Most people don’t want to be power users.
Discord doesn’t and a lot of other apps neither
Discord supports webp. I use it regularly.
Then is it Samsung’s flavor of android that is to blame ?
Might be, that one I can’t test, I don’t have any samsung devices.
I’ve never had an issue with webp on Samsung devices, either in Discord or not.
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.
If it gives you any hope I’m pretty sure Apple uses jpegxl for their pro mode raw compressed format. Apparently they did that change with last year’s iPhone so there’s still hope.
Keep the faith good hir knight.
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.
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.
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.
Takes forever to encode though
Yeah, almost as long as AV1, depending upon settings.
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.)
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 Lemmy becomes one
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.
That’s good to know! If I ever get to make an instance of anything in the Fediverse and I set it to save images (lol, fat chace), I’m setting it to either JPEG-XL or XPM.
Oh, I forgot webp supported transparency.
Guess it has something over jpg.and animations
Jpg
It’s old, as in 1980’s, so everything supports it
All I want is a picture of a god dang hot dog.
Best I can do:
Why the extra $1, if you by 2 corndags?
supplyin’ da man. Why not get 5 for only $50?
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
i am perfectly aware of that, but if you only want to view the .webp file outside of your browser, you don’t need to convert it properly, just rename the extansion
Yes, and no. No app will display the image if it wasn’t already capable of displaying webp, period.
However, there are many places (mainly websites where you can only upload certain formats, but it can also be apps) where the underlying infrastructure supports webp, but they do a simple extension check first with a list of file extensions that doesn’t include .webp. In those cases, changing the extension to .jpg will get the image through the filter, and the underlying system will detect the format using the magic number at the beginning of the file.
The same thing can happen when your OS has no associated app to open .webp, but the app it uses for .jpg can also display .webp.
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.
On the other hand, if you just want to make people uneasy and some even angry, you can just use and share bitmaps.
Png for lossless. Jpg for lossy.
I don’t like webp since it can be both lossy and lossless. Will result in confusion and mistakes.
This meme is out of date.
