- cross-posted to:
- programmerhumor@lemmy.ml
- cross-posted to:
- programmerhumor@lemmy.ml
You must log in or register to comment.
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,…
This meme is out of date.
To be fair, it’s not terrible quality loss, it’s just worse than JPEG, the main format it was trying to replace. It’s way better than GIF though.
GIF compression is endearing, though. It only has 256 colors, but it tries its hardest anyway.
That’s kind of terrible as JPEG is lossy af
That depends on the compression level
Forget webp. AVIF is the image format.
(Especially after Google killed JPEG-XL.)
The image format… unless your image is greater than 4K resolution.
For all I know, the 4K thing is misinformation.
According to Wikipedia, it’s 8K resolution for the baseline profile. That’s still bad.
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
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.
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. And of course,
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
Acceptheader). 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.
Better than PNG?
Quality loss? Webp supports lossless.
So does JPEG. It doesn’t mean that people (will) use it for that.
What - doesn’t - support webp at this point? P much all maintained open source software has for years upon years, os x has for years, Android and iOS have for ages as well, even windows added support a year ago or so supposedly.
Like are these memes made by confused time travelers?
Discord doesn’t and a lot of other apps neither
Discord supports webp. I use it regularly.
Then is it Samsung’s flavor of android that is to blame ?
Might be, that one I can’t test, I don’t have any samsung devices.
It’s often a nightmare when sharing to chat apps to show friends memes etc
a) send links instead of polluting my storage with garbage, please
b) use Signal, it does webp
I really don’t get the WebP hate, it’s a good format. It’s better than PNG and JPG.
PNG is lossless, so isn’t that like comparing apples to oranges?
Edit: Apparently webp can also be lossless. I don’t know anything.
JPEG-XL exists, is factually better, and is not patent encumbered.
How is WebP “patent encumbered”? It’s an open format.
Yes, but that is actually almost “incompatible with every app and website”
Though you couldn’t set the bar any lower without it turning into a joke.
Anyhow, to quote Wikipedia:
Comparing different encodings (JPEG, x264, and WebP) of a reference image, she stated that the quality of the WebP-encoded result was the worst of the three, mostly because of blurriness on the image. […] In October 2013, Josh Aas from Mozilla Research published a comprehensive study of current lossy encoding techniques and was not able to conclude that WebP outperformed JPEG by any significant margin
All while having significantly increased complexity. The blurriness problem was inherited from the video codec webp was based on. When you can’t beat an 18 years old format, don’t be surprised when people get irritated when you use your position to get it mandated into a standard, while later stalling actual improvements (JPEG XL).
Is JXL in actual use? Is it supported? I reckon it’s quite new, innit? D’you happen to.know how it compares to its peers?
It’s not supported by either Chromium or Firefox, which is part of the issue (Google basically decided against it with arguments that are much better suited against WebP, which they pushed some years ago).
There aren’t that many static image codec comparisons, for example there is https://giannirosato.com/blog/post/image-comparison/. https://afontenot.github.io/image-formats-comparison/ doesn’t even include WebP because the test suite uses features unsupported by it (YUV 4:4:4). In the ones I do find, WebP usually wins against good JPEG at low bitrates, but loses on high bitrates because of the blurriness issue. They both get beaten by JPEG XL and AVIF. Which one is better probably depends on whom you ask. The before linked comparison prefers JPEG XL by a slim margin, https://tonisagrista.com/blog/2023/jpegxl-vs-avif/ strongly favors JPEG XL.
It’s just tech illiterate being “oh no my image program not open this 10 year old new format”
Avif
I see avif online now and then. Almost as much as png.
Webp can be lossy or lossless though, and what kind of shitty apps are you using that don’t support it?
It’s like complaining jpeg is compressed with PNG isn’t? It’s the creator who decides.
Google Docs etc. Lol.
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 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 X has supported webp for years.
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.
DAT and DDC were great as well. Beta too. But sometimes good enough (like JPG and VHS) is good enough.
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.
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 know what Betamax is.
Not my fault that peoples pirated copy of Photoshop CS5 can’t open it.
Better to just use gimp at this point surely?
webp is a fine format, blame the websites that disallow webp upload, but then proceed to convert the image to webp anyway
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.
< Insert XKCD comic strip about new standards here >
JPG-XL crying in the corner.
Sitting next to JPEG-2000
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.
For me it’s HEIF. I love it because it’s smaller and higher quality than JPEG, but literally nothing supports this format. 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.
AV1 is for video though? JPEG-XL is patent-free, better performant than most or all alternatives, and made for images.
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.
Takes forever to encode though
Yeah, almost as long as AV1, depending upon settings.
