• Ⓜ3️⃣3️⃣ 🌌@lemmy.zip
    0·
    3 months ago

    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. 😜

    • reddig33@lemmy.worldEnglish
      0·
      3 months ago

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

      • vrighter@discuss.tchncs.de
        0·
        3 months ago

        betacam was better than vhs, and was used in the broadcasting industry. It was better than vhs.

        Betamax, which is the one you’re talking about, is not the same format, and actually equal to or slightly inferior to vhs.

      • ZILtoid1991@lemmy.world
        0·
        3 months ago

        Yeah, let’s stick with obsolete (JPEG) formats, so no one needs to improve their loaders (very hard), and people can continue to use that funny video editor that came with some old version of Windows without converters (very evil, Irfanview does not have the same meme potential as WinRAR).

    • Jean-luc Peak-hard@piefed.socialEnglish
      0·
      3 months ago

      its interesting to me that this is only really an issue on proprietary OS’s (mac/windows) as i’ve never had an issue with any image or video formats when using linux. i use all three but linux is my primary OS. mac/windows mostly stay at work.

      • Taldan@lemmy.world
        0·
        3 months ago

        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

        • Jean-luc Peak-hard@piefed.socialEnglish
          0·
          3 months ago

          yeah macOS supports webp now (since ~2020), but it lacked support for a decade, causing frustration for its users and anyone trying to support macOS/Safari.

      • guynamedzero@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        0·
        3 months ago

        I grew up on macOS, until a few years ago where I actually had my own personal computer for the first time, which had windows pre installed, so i used that and like it a lot more than macOS, i just felt so much more free, and the general workflow felt more intuitive to me, then, early this year, i switched to Linux and there’s no way in hell I’ll ever go back. In just a couple months I learned more about how computers worked than I did over something like 12 years of using computers as a teen. It’s really crazy to me how once you get something set up on Linux, it just works, and all of the documentation is open and detailed!

        • AnUnusualRelic@lemmy.world
          0·
          3 months ago

          While all of that is true, the thing is that most people just don’t care. They just use two or three programs (poorly) and don’t really care about the underlying system, never mind the computer. That’s why windows is so entrenched.

          • hornywarthogfart@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
            0·
            3 months ago

            Windows is mostly so entrenched because Microsoft applied monopolistic practices in the 90’s to ensure it was the most used operating system thereby cementing their place for decades to come.

            Then, they applied monopolistic practices in the cloud industry to ensure vendor lock-in at the OS level with their most popular services (like Office).

            You are right that most people just don’t care though. I don’t blame them, there is enough stress in the world.

    • GamingChairModel@lemmy.world
      0·
      3 months ago

      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.

      • calisti@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        0·
        3 months ago

        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.

        • GamingChairModel@lemmy.world
          0·
          3 months ago

          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.

    • sarmale@lemmy.zip
      0·
      3 months ago

      I will forever support JPEGXL. AV1 is a good video codec, not that good for imgaes.

      Google may have killed it on the web but it’s slowly gaining support in other places where webp never had any

      • calisti@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        0·
        3 months ago

        Glad to hear JPEG-XL is still making its way. It deserves to become the most widespread image format.

        Regarding web usage after the Google situation:

        I do disagree about AV1. Its AVIF image format spinoff is very good. Often better quality or smaller file size than webp, and has browser support as good as webp nowadays.

        I work on a lot of web projects, and I used to serve webp and AVIF for a while (based on the browser’s HTTP Accept header). Recently, I decommissioned all webp handling and serving code.

        See https://caniuse.com/?search=image+format. You can serve an AVIF for every requested JPEG or PNG file.

      • calisti@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        0·
        3 months ago

        Oh wow, Mozilla reconsidered JXL support. They said no after Google pulled out, but “now” (well, since an entire year ago) they’re at half a yes again.

        https://github.com/mozilla/standards-positions/pull/1064

        https://github.com/libjxl/jxl-rs

        Edit: neat, it has recently landed in the Firefox codebase: https://phabricator.services.mozilla.com/D263393

        Still behind a flag, but Apple seems to have decided for JXL, and Mozilla seems to have gotten their mind made up and following suit.

  • aliser@lemmy.world
    0·
    3 months ago

    it supports transparency and produces small file sizes compared to PNG while looking pretty similarly. fuck Microsoft in particular for not supporting it.

    • flamingos-cant (hopepunk arc)@feddit.ukEnglish
      0·
      3 months ago

      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.

      • ulterno@programming.devEnglish
        0·
        3 months ago

        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.

        • GamingChairModel@lemmy.world
          0·
          3 months ago

          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.

  • Logical@lemmy.world
    0·
    3 months ago

    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.

  • Unlearned9545@lemmy.world
    0·
    3 months ago

    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.

    • Zetta@mander.xyz
      0·
      3 months ago

      If loser companies would support it I’d say AV1 Image File Format (AVIF) is the best.

    • Kilgore Trout@feddit.it
      0·
      3 months ago

      It is. The sentiment comes from majority of Americans using Apple operating systems, which refused to support WebP until recently.

    • Dumhuvud@programming.devEnglish
      0·
      3 months ago

      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.

      • fdnomad@programming.dev
        0·
        3 months ago

        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?

  • Rose@slrpnk.net
    0·
    3 months ago

    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.

    • tiramichu@sh.itjust.works
      0·
      3 months ago

      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.

    • mojofrododojo@lemmy.worldEnglish
      0·
      3 months ago

      most people preferred 35mm

      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.

  • Korhaka@sopuli.xyzEnglish
    0·
    3 months ago

    Webp can be lossy or lossless though, and what kind of shitty apps are you using that don’t support it?

  • Awkwardparticle@programming.dev
    0·
    3 months ago

    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.

      • KubeRoot@discuss.tchncs.deEnglish
        0·
        3 months ago

        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.

  • 🇰 🌀 🇱 🇦 🇳 🇦 🇰 🇮 @pawb.socialEnglish
    0·
    3 months ago

    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.

    • shneancy@lemmy.world
      0·
      3 months ago

      .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

      • azertyfun@sh.itjust.works
        0·
        3 months ago

        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’.

      • Prinz Kasper@feddit.org
        0·
        3 months ago

        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.

      • AirBreather@lemmy.world
        0·
        3 months ago

        JPEG also supports lossless compression.

        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.