- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
You must log in or register to comment.
in my honest opinion, it’s a real shame that webp isn’t widely supported. it’s actually really great: it has awesome lossless compression, it’s so much smaller than a png while not losing any quality, it supports animation and loops, etc. it’s like jpg, png, and gif rolled into one format.
for my use cases of memes or a PowerPoint type thing once in a while for school. Literally any image format works for me. I don’t care about quality (as long as it’s not REALLY bad) and just want to get the image from Google to the PowerPoint, and somehow GOOGLES own image format fails to work for GOOGLES PowerPoint product.
I don’t understand how you can not support your own format 10 years after it came out.pro tip by the way, you can open it in Microsoft paint then “save as -> .PNG” to get Google slides/whatever to accept it.
(before someone recommends alternatives, im talking about use on a locked down school computer. I can’t use alternative software that’s better because they block images in WIKIPEDIA, no shot for using an actual foss software lmao)
use on a locked down school computer.
Shift + Win + S
I’ll bet they didn’t disable that in Group Policy. Lasso that sumbitch right off your screen and then just paste it into whatever.
webp is absofuckinglutely inferior to JPEG-XL and that one is where you actually have that problem. I’m literally providing an avif-fallback on my website, because otherwise pretty much no browser would support anything.
(Speaking of it, avif is also superior to webp.)
I’ll take ASCII art over webp.
The giant jpeg square artefact on the side of Homer’s head in the first frame undermines the message somewhat.
I’m not sure that’s a JPEG artifact. It looks more like a video compression artifact (since the image is probably taken from a video).
Wait till this guy hears what videos are made of
This is either old or was never true.
unless they recently changed it you can’t add an image using GOOGLES image format in GOOGLES PowerPoint thing
This has been an ongoing problem.
Happened to me literally last week
Relevant XKCD
I mean… most websites don’t use .bmp and that’s for a reason… that reason being that it sucks ass.
That’s basically how Lemmy clients work. No, there are 14 Lemmy clients! Ridiculous, we need one universal Lemmy clients… there are 15 Lemmy clients.
Lemmy uses webp for profile pics.
I recently put in a lot of hours for a software system to be able to handle webp just as well as every other image format it already accepted. I put in a lot of work as well. Hadn’t heard about it for a while, but saw the feature release statement for the new version I knew my changes were in. It wasn’t on there. So I reached out to my contact and asked if there was an issue or did it get bumped to a later version or what? So she told me the marketing team that do the release statements decided not to include it. They stated for one, people already expect common formats to be handled. Saying you now handle a format looks bad, since people know you didn’t handle it before and were behind the curve. The second (probably more important) reason was nobody knew what webp even was and it’s only something technical people care about (they probably said nerds, but my contact translated). So no regular customer would be interested and it could only lead to confusion and questions.
I hope somebody is happy with the work I put in tho. Somebody is going to drag a webp into the system and have it be accepted. Someday… I hope…
The only ones reading the changelog are nerds anyway
I hope somebody is happy with the work I put in tho. Somebody is going to drag a webp into the system and have it be accepted.
And that was me! I mean, not with your software but with someone else’s years ago. Still, in a weird anachronistic karma sort of way, thank you for caring.
- Fuck those people for telling you this after you did the work
- Those reasons are hard-stop stupid. If they REALLY cared about the marketing they’d release it silently or add a “improvements to image format handling” line and leave it at that.
I will second the suggestion at something like “expanded support for more image formats”. One of my responsibilities is rolling the development log into customer release notes and I agree with the “changes that highlight a previous shortcoming can look bad”, and make accommodations for that all the time. I also try to make sure every developer that contributed can recognize their work in the release notes.
“Expanded image format support” seems like something that if a customer hasn’t noticed, they would assume “oh they must have some customer with a weird proprietary format that they added but have to be vague about”. If it were related to customer requests, I would email the specific customers highlighting their need for webp is addressed after pushing the release notes
Maybe I worded it incorrectly. The feature was released in that version. They just didn’t mention it in the release statement they put out to there customers. I’m sure there’s some changelog somewhere people can dig into where it says something like what you mentioned. Or it can just be under “Various small improvements” which they always add as a catch-all.
So I’m happy, I did the job and got paid. Everyone I worked with was happy. And the feature got released. It’s was just a let down it didn’t get mentioned at all, even though I put quite a lot of work into it.
I appreciate it! Thank you
I hate it so much. Just stick to jpg.
.jxl is the better image format anyway
.jxl is still early. Webp is out for 14 years now and if support is missing its completely on the ineptitude of the client and nothing else.
I feel like jxl is supported even less than webp though
webp is completely supported by browsers I think now.
Websites still get weird about it.
JXL is supported by Safari and ummmmm mobile Safari.
iPhone 16 supports shooting in JPEG-XL and I expect that will be huge for hardware/processing adoption.
webp is not fully supported by safari and webview on iOS; they cannot export images as image/webp using the toDataUrl or toBlob from a canvas element
Frak Safari.
“Surely they must be exaggerating,” I thought…
And it’s not even a contest.
BTW, I only found out recently and by accident that my stock Gimp 2.10 supports it!Dude update your GIMP
Not the fault of the format
No, it is googol’s fault. Fuck googol.
As someone who sometimes needs a quick and dirty stock image for my work, webp is the bane of my existence. The work computers won’t let me visit sites or install programs/extensions to convert the image, and my document processing programs have no fucking clue what to do with the format. There is an option in Microsoft edge to edit image, and it will dump the result as a .png which is the only workaround I’ve found.
I run Firefox portable with the extension “Save webp as PNG or JPEG”. It has a button to copy directly to clipboard in the format of your choice.
I usually open it in paint and save as.
I usually screenshot it in place with alt-print screen, paste it into paint, crop it to size, and save
When I save as an image and it comes up as webp I just change the extension dropdown to all files and change the extension to .png in the filename box, hasn’t failed for me yet
Samir ?
I had a colleague code a FFT algorithm in Excel because that was the only deployment tool the customer would be allowed to use…
Personal homepage is HTML 2.0 compliant - gold (and it keeps giving, too)
Great content from ages ago
loled at how the name of the Chinese guy is just “generic Chinese name” put into Google Translate
They clearly hate printers, a safe assumption.
I’m working on a project which generates images in multiples sizes, and also converts to WEBP and AVIF.
The difference in file size is significant. It might not matter to you, but it matters to a lot of people.
Here’s an example (the filename is the width):
Also, using the
<picture></picture>element, if the users’ browsers don’t support (or block) AVIF/WEBP, the original format is used. No harm in using them.(I know this is a meme post, but some people are taking it seriously)
Literally just today solved a problem of delivering analytics plots over our internal chat system. The file size limit is 28Kb and I was just getting ready to say screw it, can’t be done.
Lo and behold our chat system that doesn’t support svg does support webp. Even visually complicated charts come in just below the size limit with webp.
Why 28Kb though?
Honestly no idea. It’s funny though. The API allows us to either read it directly from our lakehouse with the 28Kb limit, or allows us to encode it in a json object. It actually recommends using the json method if we want to send larger files… but then complains it’s too large if it’s over 28Kb 🤷♂️
I think it was probably originally only intended to allow attaching icons.
Feels like a bug where someone forgot the 1 in 128kb. What chat app is this?? In Slack, custom emojis can be up to 128kb in filesize
It’s apparently PowerAutomate Adaptive cards.
It’s MS Teams with their PowerAutomate flows from Fabric. The limitation might not exist in the direct rest API, which I could have used through Python; but it’s a hackathon, and my other team mates know PowerAutomate. Faster if we each coordinate using what we’re good with.
I’ve mentioned this topic in regards to animated images, but don’t see as big a reason to push for static formats due to the overall relatively limited benefits other than wider gamut and marginally smaller file size (percentage wise they are significant, but 2KB vs 200KB is paltry on even a terrible connection in the 2000s).
What I really wish is that we could get more browsers, sites, and apps to universally support more modern formats to replace the overly bloated terribly performing and never correctly pronounced animated formats like GIF with something else like AVIF, webm, webp (this was a roughly ~60MB GIF, and becomes a 1MB WEBP with better performance), or even something like APNG…
Besides wider gamut, and better performance, the sizes are actually significant on all but the fastest connections and save sites on both storage and bandwidth at significant scale compared to the mere KB of change that a static modern asset has.
This WEBP is only 800KB but only shows up on some server instances since not every Lemmy host supports embedding them :
Is that last webp animated? Asking because I know jerboa (Lemmy client) doesn’t play animated images
Yea, it’s animated for me on a web client. Looks quite good tbh.
It’s pronounced GIF
but 2KB vs 200KB is paltry on even a terrible connection in the 2000s).
You still need to resize the images and choose the right ones (even if only for the device’s performance).
So we might as well do that small extra step and add conversion to the process.
What I really wish is that we could get more browsers, sites, and apps to universally support more modern formats to replace the overly bloated terribly performing and never correctly pronounced animated formats like GIF with something else like AVIF, webm, webp (this was a roughly ~60MB GIF, and becomes a 1MB WEBP with better performance), or even something like APNG…
Isn’t that the users’ fault? And of the websites for allowing those huge GIFs.
Apparently browsers have supported MP4 for a long time.
How are you auto converting images to webp?? What is this magic. My company uses Visual Studio 2022 and our creative guy is having to save everything manually in multiple formats. Then our devs put in the webp first with a jpeg fallback, but it’s all so manual.
Funny you call it magic, what actually does the conversion is Imagick.
In my project I have it integrated in the upload process. You upload a PNG/JPG and it does its thing. Since it’s written in PHP (my project), and PHP has an extension to call Imagick, I didn’t need to write any complicated code.
You can see on this page if your programming language of choice has any integration with Imagick.
But there’s always the command line interface. Depending on your process it may be easier to create a script to “convert all images in a folder”, for example.
How is the size difference after gzip compression? Probably pretty much the same, but I wonder how large the difference is then. Since a lot of folk make sure the contents is gzipped when served to the user.
Even using the highest compression levels, barely any difference. Not worth it
If I understand correctly gzip, brotli and similar are best used to compress text.
Font files also shouldn’t be compressed. A TTF file compresses a bit, but a WOFF2 file will be even smaller than that (and WOFF2 also doesn’t compress well). So might as well use WOFF/WOFF2
If I understand correctly gzip, brotli and similar are best used to compress text.
Compression algos should be used on uncompressed data. Using them on already compressed data (most video, images, music formats) is generally useless.
Thanks, very interesting results
I’m mad tho! I have technical issues with a format that works for hundreds of millions of users daily with the only impact being their website loads faster! RAGE!
Just use jxl; it is better and not created by shitty googol.
But why webp over jxl
We already have the solution
Webp is supported in browsers. Jxl is not, unfortunately.
(Well, I have the Firefox extension for it, but most people can’t see them…)
Firefox just hasn’t enabled the setting (well they haven’t made the setting enable jxl support yet even though the setting and support has been there for years). This means their forks support it, that’s why I switched to Waterfox
Safari supports it
Chromium removed support for it 2 years ago to push webp but it’s just a reminder to not use Chromium browsers
Is the quality the same? If so how do you know? I mean it’s better, I’m just curious.
For most of the images that I tried you can only see differences with the images side by side. It’s really subtle.
I do have one example for which my config must be bad, compresses a lot but introduces a lot of noise
Tldr: as we deal with a problem long enough we find more effective ways of dealing with it
Has some info on what it does
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/JPEG_XL
Technically details might be more what you are looking for
https://jpegxl.info/resources/jpeg-xl-test-page
And a test page, if you don’t see jxl images then you should look at updating your browser
I don’t know if the client is the issue, but I am using the Voyager android app and this image failed to load
Works for me with Voyager on mobile.
No webp for me, just because Google is pushig it and that is suspect.
Lol it’s like 10 years old at this point. Not sure they’re pushing it anymore. I think files that are half the size sell themselves
“It works just like regular image formats, but it’s fun.”
