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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
That's true, but its not always about the server, people tend to download images/memes/etc with the intent to edit/share. If you were on macos and happened to download a webp image in the 10 years that Apple didn't support them, you were in for some googling and/or frustration.
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).
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
I didn’t say it was patent free, and the text doesn’t say “unless we say so”. It explicitly says the only way the patent grants can be revoked is if you enter patent litigation or enforcement regarding this code.
If you or your agent or exclusive licensee institute or order or agree to the institution of patent litigation or any other patent enforcement activity against any entity (including a cross-claim or counterclaim in a lawsuit) alleging that any of these implementations of WebM or any code incorporated within any of these implementations of WebM constitutes direct or contributory patent infringement, or inducement of patent infringement, then any patent rights granted to you under this License for these implementations of WebM shall terminate as of the date such litigation is filed.
That is still a problem, but what I was responding to:
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.
is just wrong.
I have no problem with calling out Google’s anticompetitive behaviors, even in this case, but don’t lie about it.
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.
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.
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)
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.
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. 🤷♂️
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
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 - 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?
For 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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(?).
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.
Still a pretty limited palette, everyone wearing the same color shirts.
PNG tends to fail hard with textures. For example, my preferred theme in my chess app, which has some wood grain textures, generates huge screenshot file sizes (2MB), whereas the default might be less than 10% as large. Similarly, when I screenshot this image the file size jumps to 2MB for a 0.8 megapixel image.
Rendered textured scenes could easily overload the PNG compression algorithm to where they're huge, and if Discord is historically associated with gaming, one can imagine certain video game screenshots blasting past that 40mb limit.
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)
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.
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.
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.
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]
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.
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 that cover the entire bitstream. They offer a patent license that is conditional on not suing them. So they basically own and control WebP entirely. 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.
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.
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.
it supports transparency and produces small file sizes compared to PNG while looking pretty similarly. fuck Microsoft in particular for not supporting 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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
Thanks for the iPhone hint! Do you happen to know or have an idea why Apple chose to offer JPEG XL only as ProRaw format? For “normal” photo capture, they still use HEIC only.
I think HEIC plays friendly for how they store live photos: a container that has both a still image and a video of the surrounding time context. HEIC for the still photo and HEVC for the video probably optimizes the hardware acceleration for fast, low power processing of both parts of the data, and allows for a higher quality extraction of an alternative still photo from a different part of the video.
And maybe they want to have more third party support in place before they set JXL as a default. All the power and space savings in the world on capture might not mean as much if the phone has to do the work of exporting a JPEG or HEIC for each time that file interfaces with an app or the browser or whatever.
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'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?
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.
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.
Xerox did that ages ago.
https://www.dkriesel.com/en/blog/2013/0802_xerox-workcentres_are_switching_written_numbers_when_scanning
Fuuuuuck. There goes another business idea. 😂
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.
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.
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.
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
That's true, but its not always about the server, people tend to download images/memes/etc with the intent to edit/share. If you were on macos and happened to download a webp image in the 10 years that Apple didn't support them, you were in for some googling and/or frustration.
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.
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)
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.
https://res.cloudinary.com/thewebmaster/image/upload/c_scale,f_auto,q_auto,w_1250/images/blog/jpeg-images-definitive-guide/JPEG_Quality_vs_Size.png
Sitting next to JPEG-2000
> complains about lossy format
> meme uses lossless image
Am 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.
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:
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.
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.
https://www.webmproject.org/license/additional/
Thanks for taking the time to disprove this
That's still not patent free. Heck it's right there: "irrevocable (unless we say so)".
I didn’t say it was patent free, and the text doesn’t say “unless we say so”. It explicitly says the only way the patent grants can be revoked is if you enter patent litigation or enforcement regarding this code.
That is still a problem, but what I was responding to:
is just wrong.
I have no problem with calling out Google’s anticompetitive behaviors, even in this case, but don’t lie about it.
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.
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.
personally:
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)
The posting of webps will continue until support improves.
Is webps just webp with SSL ? 😏
No, it's a new format remember?
So TLS, maybe
Ah right. It should be TLS, and it may be SSL for future backward compatibility, sometimes resulting in corrupted images without warning.
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. 🤷♂️
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'.
What software are you using? I'm mainly using free and open source ones, they all can open it.
photoshop & davinci resolve
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 - 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 webp
For 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
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
I thought most people replaced every part of Windows with something better, because none of it was very good.
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.
That’s why Lemmy will probably never be big
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
https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2023-4863
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.
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.
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.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.
The website mentions
Does anyone know how that works?
I assume, decoding it on the fly? It's possible to encode a JPEG as a JPEG XL losslessly.
If loser companies would support it I'd say AV1 Image File Format (AVIF) is the best.
It is. The sentiment comes from majority of Americans using Apple operating systems, which refused to support WebP until recently.
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.
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.
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 :)
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.)
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.
What if I want to screenshot my cocaine-fueled rant to my ex and mistakenly send it to said ex instead of my homies?
Then you need more cocaine.
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.
I took a screenshot of this page
(Screenshot removed because it takes forever to load and is not interesting enough to waste bandwidth on)
I am connected to a 4K monitor and this picture is also at 3775 × 2119. The total file size:
12.1 MB
Still a pretty limited palette, everyone wearing the same color shirts.
PNG tends to fail hard with textures. For example, my preferred theme in my chess app, which has some wood grain textures, generates huge screenshot file sizes (2MB), whereas the default might be less than 10% as large. Similarly, when I screenshot this image the file size jumps to 2MB for a 0.8 megapixel image.
Rendered textured scenes could easily overload the PNG compression algorithm to where they're huge, and if Discord is historically associated with gaming, one can imagine certain video game screenshots blasting past that 40mb limit.
Screenshoting modded minecraft on a 4k panel does it reliably for me
This meme is out of date.
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)
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?
not sure. Maybe OP lives in a different universe
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.
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.
On the other hand, if you just want to make people uneasy and some even angry, you can just use and share bitmaps.
Never understood why jepgXL didn’t win out
Because Google didn’t invent it, and Google decides what does and doesn’t get added to the Internet.
Google were literally one of the three organisations who worked on the standard, and the top contributor to the reference implementation works there.
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.
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JPEG_XL
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.
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 that cover the entire bitstream. They offer a patent license that is conditional on not suing them. So they basically own and control WebP entirely. 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.
It's different people who develop and who decide.
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.
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.You're thinking of jpeg2000
Oops. I'd somehow missed that there was now a third kind of JPEG.
Yes, I would like to waste 500 KB over the wire for an image of indistinguishable quality
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.
it supports transparency and produces small file sizes compared to PNG while looking pretty similarly. fuck Microsoft in particular for not supporting it.
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.
That's highly relatable, but you must learn to control your disgusting urges to mislabel files.
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.
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.
GIF compression is endearing, though. It only has 256 colors, but it tries its hardest anyway.
The little format that could. 🥺
People didn't really jif it a chance.
A little format's jrand adventure
That's kind of terrible as JPEG is lossy af
That depends on the compression level
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.
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.
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.
I thought it was designed so that Google could continue to de-facto own the web.
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.
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,...
[added your website to my firewall blacklist]
What are you helping babbling about?
I just don't like webp, but apparently Lemmy is alergic to jokes
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.
Forget webp. AVIF is the image format.
(Especially after Google killed JPEG-XL.)
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.
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.
Thanks for the iPhone hint! Do you happen to know or have an idea why Apple chose to offer JPEG XL only as ProRaw format? For “normal” photo capture, they still use HEIC only.
I think HEIC plays friendly for how they store live photos: a container that has both a still image and a video of the surrounding time context. HEIC for the still photo and HEVC for the video probably optimizes the hardware acceleration for fast, low power processing of both parts of the data, and allows for a higher quality extraction of an alternative still photo from a different part of the video.
And maybe they want to have more third party support in place before they set JXL as a default. All the power and space savings in the world on capture might not mean as much if the phone has to do the work of exporting a JPEG or HEIC for each time that file interfaces with an app or the browser or whatever.
Makes sense. Thanks for your knowledgeable response!
The image format… unless your image is greater than 4K resolution.
For all I know, the 4K thing is misinformation.
According to Wikipedia, it’s 8K resolution for the baseline profile. That’s still bad.
Better than PNG?
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.
This meme needs more artifacts
Seriously who started this horseshit trend??
Google.
so sad to see so many google simps blinding defending this crap
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.
.JXL for the win
Lol, this is a braindead post. Truly stupid.
Avif
I see avif online now and then. Almost as much as png.
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. 😜
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?
If only there were an image format
https://www.grammarly.com/blog/commonly-confused-words/was-vs-were/
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.