• carpelbridgesyndrome@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
    92·
    4 hours ago

    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

    • hperrin@lemmy.caEnglish
      8·
      5 hours ago

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

    • AnyOldName3@lemmy.world
      11·
      4 hours 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.

  • Xylight@lemdro.idEnglish
    121·
    8 hours ago

    Yes, I would like to waste 500 KB over the wire for an image of indistinguishable quality

  • Victor@lemmy.world
    17·
    12 hours ago

    I hate that Messenger doesn’t support webp. Makes sharing from Lemmy quite annoying. Signal takes webp though, no prob.

      • Victor@lemmy.world
        7·
        7 hours ago

        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.)

        • filcuk@lemmy.zip
          2·
          7 hours 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.

  • hperrin@lemmy.caEnglish
    102·
    12 hours ago

    To be fair, it’s not terrible quality loss, it’s just worse than JPEG, the main format it was trying to replace. It’s way better than GIF though.

  • Kokesh@lemmy.worldEnglish
    93·
    12 hours ago

    I don’t know, but after I’ve replaced all images on the website I manage with webp, it loads faster. In Firefox, Chromium stuff,…

  • mostlikelyaperson@lemmy.world
    362·
    16 hours 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?

  • qaz@lemmy.worldEnglish
    545·
    18 hours ago

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

    • prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      7·
      12 hours 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.

    • Laser@feddit.org
      271·
      16 hours 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 stalling actual improvements (JPEG XL).

      • lemmyknow@lemmy.today
        31·
        14 hours 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
          8·
          13 hours 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.

        • Venia Silente@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
          8·
          11 hours ago

          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.

        • Venia Silente@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
          2·
          7 hours ago

          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.

      • qaz@lemmy.worldEnglish
        31·
        11 hours ago

        Yes, but that is actually almost “incompatible with every app and website”

        • Venia Silente@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
          11·
          11 hours ago

          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.

    • Dr. Moose@lemmy.worldEnglish
      165·
      17 hours ago

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

    • Jean-luc Peak-hard@piefed.socialEnglish
      401·
      20 hours 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
        81·
        17 hours 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
          6·
          14 hours 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·
            9 hours 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.

        • Jean-luc Peak-hard@piefed.socialEnglish
          21·
          6 hours ago

          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.

    • reddig33@lemmy.worldEnglish
      42·
      21 hours ago

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

      • ZILtoid1991@lemmy.world
        1·
        6 hours ago

        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).

      • vrighter@discuss.tchncs.de
        43·
        20 hours ago

        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.

  • Nat (she/they)@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    11·
    6 hours ago

    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?

  • Eager Eagle@lemmy.worldEnglish
    1875·
    1 day ago

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

    • KairuByte@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      34·
      23 hours ago

      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.

    • sarmale@lemmy.zip
      8·
      13 hours ago

      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

      • calisti@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        7·
        12 hours ago

        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.

      • calisti@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        3·
        12 hours ago

        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 Accept header). 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.