may i introduce you to our lord and saviour: Don’t “Accept” image/webp
it supports transparency and produces small file sizes compared to PNG while looking pretty similarly. fuck Microsoft in particular for not supporting it.
This meme needs more artifacts
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.
When a user downloads or views an image it should be served in a better format.
tell that to google chrome
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 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.
If loser companies would support it I’d say AV1 Image File Format (AVIF) is the best.
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.It is. The sentiment comes from majority of Americans using Apple operating systems, which refused to support WebP until recently.
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.
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.
so sad to see so many google simps blinding defending this crap
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.
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.
What if I want to screenshot my cocaine-fueled rant to my ex and mistakenly send it to said ex instead of my homies?
Never understood why jepgXL didn’t win out
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.
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.
It’s different people who develop and who decide.
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.
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’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?
Yes, I would like to waste 500 KB over the wire for an image of indistinguishable quality
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
