- cross-posted to:
- programmerhumor@lemmy.ml
- cross-posted to:
- programmerhumor@lemmy.ml
You must log in or # to comment.
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.
Sitting next to JPEG-2000
The posting of webps will continue until support improves.
Is webps just webp with SSL ? 😏
No, it’s a new format remember?
So TLS, maybeAh right. It should be TLS, and it may be SSL for future backward compatibility, sometimes resulting in corrupted images without warning.
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.
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.
These are factors webp was designed for.
I thought it was designed so that Google could continue to de-facto own the web.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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. 🤷♂️
.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.
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.
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 >
I blame Google for killing JPEG XL in favor of webp
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.
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.
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.
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 Lemmy becomes one
Hell, every upload on Lemmy becomes one
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
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.
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
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.
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’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?
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?
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?
It is. The sentiment comes from majority of Americans using Apple operating systems, which refused to support WebP until recently.
> complains about lossy format
> meme uses lossless imageAm disappoint
To be clear, webp isn’t even a lossy format. I mean, it can be, but it can also be lossless.
And it’s more of a video format than an image format, lots of juicy attack surface
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.
Keep the faith good hir knight.
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.
16 CVE’s for libjpeg just last year: https://app.opencve.io/cve/?vendor=jpeg
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?
For me it’s HEIF. I love it because it’s smaller and higher quality than JPEG, but literally nothing supports this formatted. 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.
Exactly, it seems to be common for new people to think hevc is just like avc but better. It is a format that is just a pain to work with, and is barely supported as compared to h264.
Even streaming services are sick of that format and rather use h264 or AV1.
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.
AV1 is for video though? JPEG-XL is patent-free, better performant than most or all alternatives, and made for images.
Takes forever to encode though
Yeah, almost as long as AV1, depending upon settings.
