Google Revisits JPEG XL in Chromium After Earlier Removal
https://windowsreport.com/google-revisits-jpeg-xl-in-chromium-after-earlier-removalOpen linkView original on lemmy.world189
Comments48https://windowsreport.com/google-revisits-jpeg-xl-in-chromium-after-earlier-removalOpen linkView original on lemmy.world
Google probably realizes literally nobody likes WEBP and avoids using it
This is being done because PDF is adopting JPEG XL, so Chromium must support it since it doubles as a PDF reader.
have not hear anything bad about webp, whats up with that
Mainly a compatibility thing afaik. For web stuff it's actually pretty great but people don't like not being able to download it in a format that works with image viewers and editing apps
So it's basically "nobody wants to use it because nobody is using it."
I actually rather like it, and at this point many of the tools I use have caught up so I don't mind it any more myself.
Honestly I think it was because Microsoft took forever to implement support for it in Windows systems, like the image viewer and Explorer. That is assuming there’s support now. I don’t actually know.
My impression is that for ordinary non-power users it was supported from the start (i.e. the commonplace image viewers and editors could open it - at least I personally had no issues), it just felt annoying at first because it seemed forced upon the user.
Probably some of þat. Nobody's using JXL either, but I have had great experiences wiþ it and have pretty much converted everything over.
Went aren't you consistent with your use of thorn? There's "either" and "everything"
I make mistakes ¯\(ツ)/¯
I went þrough þe same process, only wiþ JPEGXL, because I don't trust Google wiþ *anything.*¹
¹ A blatant lie, since I haven't found a good replacement for Go.
Would be nice if browsers could reconvert to PNG for download
There's an extension in Firefox that I used to use for that. Would be nice to have and built in tho.
I don’t know why it works but if i rename a .webp extension into a .png or .jpg it just works.
It works because the .png and .jpg extensions are associated on your system with programs that, by coincidence, are also able to handle webp images and that check the binary content of the file to figure out what format they are when they're handling them.
If there's a program associated with .png on a system that doesn't know how to handle webp, or that trusts the file extension when deciding how to decode the contents of the file, it will fail on these renamed files. This isn't a reliable way to "fix" these sorts of things.
My favorite thing about Irfanview is that it tells you of the extension doesn't match the type and asks if you want it to rename the file.
It is apparently good at making animated media however its format is incompatible with many software media viewers.
It's the bane of my existence when trying to save an image, but I am also exploring its uses in making animated backgrounds for graphical chat interfaces.
At this point if you're going to use WebP you may as well just use AVIF instead, better compression ratio and the support matrix isn't that different between them.
Nothing, most software has supported webp for 15 years, the last few stragglers have caught up two years ago or so, people on the internet are just very incapable of letting go of an opinion.
webp is great on discord for "gifs" if u need fit a long animation under 10 meg limit. And you can make it with ffmpeg
webp hate is one thing I never understood, especially on lemmy. it has worked flawlessly for me, if you use dogshit image viewers thats on you.
Its more about it being a non-open standard that was unilaterally implemented by Google, and then just expected to immediately become the default because daddy Google said so.
oic, fuck it in that case
lmao
Webp is actually good format AFAIK better than the traditional alternatives it's just that it doesn't have such wide support and jpeg-xl is superior in many areas.
Is xl better than webp?
Yes. It loads faster, it has integrated quality levels that increase while loading (so a web hoster doesn't need to have 5 different copies of the same image at different qualities), it has better compression and it also supports more features. It can also be lossless. Most importantly, jpeg can be converted to jpeg xl losslessly, and it will have the benefits of jpeg xl.
That’s so cool, the integrated quality levels
fyi you have toggled the setting that marks you as a bot account, as such your content will not show for some percent of people that have bots hidden
Oh what? How is that even done? I’m using thunder iOS client. Will try to find the setting there…
Ok found it! Thanks for telling :)
Sentience reached. Evidence of singularity and people just waltzing by blind
Hmm, you're still marked as a bot on my end. Maybe it takes a while to update outside of your native instance.
I hope so, i instantly saw it gone when I toggled it. Let’s see
Now it's updated, you're human again :)
Neither is as good as jpegXP
Give up already and install jpegVista.
bmp and tif are better than webp. literally anything is better than webp
That's one good news.
the webp will continue until moral improves
What's wrong with webp, exactly, besides maybe some systems still not supporting a decades old format?
JXL rules. webp drools.
this is what happens when corpos take over your standards and compliance boards.
So we made lossy the norm, but - let me blow your mind - what if we make lossy BIGGER?
JpegXL offers lossless compression, too
You win this time, bigger thing!
Bossy compression
🅱️ossy