it supports transparency and produces small file sizes compared to PNG while looking pretty similarly. fuck Microsoft in particular for not supporting it.
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.The website mentions
Migrating to JPEG XL reduces storage costs because servers can store a single JPEG XL file to serve both JPEG and JPEG XL clients.
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.
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.
It is. The sentiment comes from majority of Americans using Apple operating systems, which refused to support WebP until recently.
.JXL for the win
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
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.
This meme needs more artifacts
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.
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.
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.
Screenshoting modded minecraft on a 4k panel does it reliably for me
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.
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.
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 :)
| | | | | | _
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.
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.
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.
webp is a fine format, blame the websites that disallow webp upload, but then proceed to convert the image to webp anyway
I blame Google for killing JPEG XL in favor of webp
< 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.
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.
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.
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.
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)
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.
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.
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.
The only way one lossless algorithm can beat another is in compression size. If one has worse image quality than the other, the worse one isn’t lossless.
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?
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.
deleted by creator
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
