xpostml10Google's WebP
Just change the file extension to *.png. Works every time.
surprised_pikachu.webp.png
Wait till you find out what’s inside when you change Office from .***x to .zip
ludrolUnironically it will work as @[email protected] and a bunch just like him has put in the work to Just Work^TM^
Why does this even work though? WEBP and PNG are very different file formats yet for some reason this has always worked for me as well. Is windows automatically converting the files? I haven’t checked if changing the file extension changes the file size.
WebP is a container around the RIFF file format, and contains the RIFF header info. So any container that is built off RIFF, or supports RIFF, can at least interpret the container data that is RIFF compatible and will lose anything that has been extended upon.
Stop trying to make .webp happen. It’s not going to happen.
Maybe we should try to make it happen harder
apfelwoiSchoppenThey use it on their server side to save data, they don’t give a rip if we don’t use it. If they did, they’d have sunshined it already.
Zozanogit fetch github.com/webmproject/libwebp
GitHub - webmproject/libwebp: Mirror only. Please do not send pull requests. See https://chromium.googlesource.com/webm/libwebp/+/HEAD/CONTRIBUTING.md.
Mirror only. Please do not send pull requests. See https://chromium.googlesource.com/webm/libwebp/+/HEAD/CONTRIBUTING.md. - webmproject/libwebp
TrickDacyIt’s already happened.
Found the Google guy
Doesn’t matter who made the format, it’s already widespread.
I love webp though
[deleted] in lemmyThat is because you are ignorant.
TheTechnician27Just don’t let Google kill JPEG XL.
ProdigalFrog
MakiNow try to find somewhere which accepts apng or mng. I’ll wait. ;)
I have never heard of those formats.
My point exactly.
Just checked, our very corporate and much antiquated website does accept apng (sadly not publicly visible as it’s b2b only). We do deal with photography though, so we do expect multitude of formats and mostly either pass them unchanged or just feed them to ImageMagick and forget about it. The bane of our existence is mostly DNG which Adobe breaks every year or so by introducing breaking spec changes.
MNG is a bit of an oddity; it was originally supposed to replace GIF but was itself replaced with PNG, Flash, and SVG. I have no such files available but ImageMagick can supposedly make one out of a number of PNG or JPG files if you’re interested in toying with it.
Lucy :3Tbh, for myself I either want lossless (eg. professional photographs for an app) or don’t care about size, due to small volume (eg. my own pics and vids) and also kinda want the originals. And in today’s time, bandwidth isn’t lacking (for most people, including me). So everything’s just a png.
Oooh baby I like RAW
AmbiguousPropsAlways save as RAW
Not just any RAW, but a multi exposure DNG!
As is in the name, the format is meant for web.
SatyrSackWhat is being implied here? That Website A encourages you to download an image from them in WEBP format, but you cannot then upload that image to Websites B through Z because those sites do not support WEBP?
Not just websites, but software as well. Like image editing software. Which is quite bad.
Here’s the original clip from The Simpsons episode: www.youtube.com/watch?v=g4XZxHXSHko
The Simpsons - Itchy and Scratchy Money
The funniest thing is that even some of Google's own products don't accept Webp, like Google Voice.
Shhhh just be happy Google Voice still exists, and isn’t in the graveyard. Personally I’d take RCS over webp in Google Voice.
I feel with you. The product idea is awesome, the implementation is so-so, and progress is backwards. It's heart-breaking, really, and so sad nobody has a real alternative.
samus12345“It works just like regular image formats, but it’s fun.”
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
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)
FabianI 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.
Now that I view your reply it loaded. It seemed to be another problem. Sometimes images just don’t want to load
In case you still can’t load the image, for the largest width the JPG file has 229.9KB, WEBP has 123.5KB, AVIF has 72KB.
Is the quality the same? If so how do you know? I mean it’s better, I’m just curious.
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
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/JPEG_XL
Technically details might be more what you are looking for
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
So you have no hard proof (no critic here, I’m just curious)? Not that it’s better but that your test images has the same quality.
For the rest, thank you for the links and the time but that only explains how the compression works.
If you want to know you could do fourier transform and see which kind of signals are cut out in one for example.
Quality improvements are that you can upload/download it without getting artifacts/pixel bleeding. JXL’s algorithm ensures that it’s a 1 to 1 transfer
But if I draw a stick person 512x512, there isn’t an image format that will make it anymore than it is. That’s why we look at compression
You mean there are no longer the 8x8 jpeg “boxes”?
Yes, other formats have less noticeable deterioration but Jxl fully fixes the issue
There are no browsers with jxl support and won’t be for many years to come.
Again - no browsers support jxl. Firefox “support” is only basic rendering of a few basic features. It’s not just browsers, there is literally no software which fully supports jxl. And won’t be for a long time.
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
But why webp over jxl
We already have the solution
AdrianTheFrogWebp is supported in browsers. Jxl is not, unfortunately.
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
Because jxl is a bunch of bollocks. There’s no way it will gain any support any time soon.
Just use jxl; it is better and not created by shitty googol.
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!