What does Jow Forums think about .webp? When will Jow Forums implement .webp support?
>WebP is a modern image format that provides superior lossless and lossy compression for images on the web. Using WebP, webmasters and web developers can create smaller, richer images that make the web faster. >WebP lossless images are 26% smaller in size compared to PNGs. WebP lossy images are 25-34% smaller than comparable JPEG images at equivalent SSIM quality index. >Lossless WebP supports transparency (also known as alpha channel) at a cost of just 22% additional bytes. For cases when lossy RGB compression is acceptable, lossy WebP also supports transparency, typically providing 3× smaller file sizes compared to PNG.
The difference is, Pajeet, Webms are easily converted and many large and important sites INCLUDING this one support webm.
Nicholas Sullivan
>internet so slow he needs a format smaller than .jpg
Adam Parker
And yet there was once a time where nobody supported webms. Not Jow Forums, not anywhere. Just because nobody has made a GUI yet doesn't mean you can't convert stuff to webp. Learn to use the command line tools.
Are you that much of a sadomasochistic contrarian that you would willingly take time out of your day to fuck with the command line just for simple images?
Webm was never like this even when it was brand new. This is pointless. Last I checked Kilobytes weren't resource intensive.
Jaxson Wilson
>X is a modern image format that provides superior lossless and lossy compression for images on the web. Using X, webmasters and web developers can create smaller, richer images that make the web faster. that happens every 6 months.
Hudson Walker
>Webm was never like this even when it was brand new.
Yes it was. You just didn't know .webm existed yet when it was like that. Just like how you didn't know .webp existed until I showed you.
>willingly take time out of your day to fuck with the command line just for simple images
? it takes like 10 seconds to open a terminal instance and type one line
Juan Thomas
Neither does .webp. It calls for the replacement of .png and .jpg as the premier online format for imagery.
Alexander Ramirez
>replacement isn't eradication. The only way this is going to take off is if you convince businesses. Webm only got off the ground because sites like Imgur.
Landon Wood
Guess who's currently implementing .webp, then? It might even replace .gifv at one point or another.
>29 kb >still no significant difference between the original lenna as much as I dare you to find any other format that give you the same quality at the same file size, here's a 46 kb version which is almost identical to the png
user that still looks really fucking bad. Are you in some kind of cult that likes to artificially increase the difficulty to basic things? Why do I have to waste the JS code to enlarge your 1996-tier image that features a loading wheel after one second?
Caleb Nguyen
>looks really fucking bad I hope you're just trolling otherwise you'd have to show me any difference between the original 512x512 lenna.png and the webm
>1996-tier image that would be the worldwide standardized image used to distinguish differences between compression algorithms, if you've got any better benchmark suggestions, point me to it
Considering that image is less than a megapixel it looks bad. I have less detailed images that look three times as good simply because unlike your images they aren't grainy as fuck nor are they compressed out the ass.
>mook >ever adding anything to the website other than additional boards and more pass incentives lol
Zachary Taylor
>Webm was never like this even when it was brand new. it literally was, I remember when trial support was put into the site and everyone had to use ffmpeg directly
Jack Stewart
ITT: People still on DSL
Andrew Walker
instead of making nonsense why don't you follow my proposal > if you've got any better benchmark suggestions, point me to it so that I can demonstrate vp8 gives you the best quality/size ratio than any other format 4chin supports?
Kevin Mitchell
The only thing I get from your posts is that you want smaller images to look compressed so we can save a meager amount of insignificant kilobytes as if we're running on a Nintendo.
There simply isn't any discussion here.
Ayden Phillips
>you want smaller images to look compressed no, I just want you to show me an image so that I can compress and make it look absolutely nowhere near compressed because I feel like whatever image I select would't be good enough for you
Ryder Young
>When will Jow Forums implement .webp support? Never, it will always be the way moot did everything
Not the other dude, but aren't you simply going to compress it to the same quality with ~25% size reduction? Not really groundbreaking - arent there many codecs that can do the same? What about VP9 or AV1?
Luke Mitchell
I like using it because it keeps AppleFaggots off my website. Same with WebM
David Gomez
You do know they can get extensions, right? Or just use a modified browser?
Still acts as a normie filter. 99.999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% of iOS faggots are normies of the highest caliber
Bentley Walker
What's worse, Applel or Pajeets?
Aaron Cooper
>jpg you still don't get the whole point of compression, do you you'd ideally need a png to compare, pretty useless to compare an already compressed jpg but still, here's your image in 604kb
edit: nope, stupid 4chin regulations say image resolution is too large, is there a free video upload platform that I can upload this?
>Can't zoom in (unless I'm a brainlet) >the walls look really fucked up >the text is way, way blurier
user, I...
Wyatt Mitchell
>zoom considering you've selected a 3000x2000 image, I thought you're already using 4k resolution on your desktop in which case full screening the video would solve any issues if not, why not trying out with a sub 1080p image so that you don't need to zoom in
>walls look really fucked up and to be fair, the walls ARE really horrific in your jpg to begin with
Zachary Reed
So you've alienated larger images from your format unless someone has the right hardware. Meaning this technique is only useful for small images, which require the LEAST amount of size-reducing effort. Am I correct user?
Not trying to be a cunt but this is ludicrous.
Ethan Perez
>not having compression autism Enjoy your wasted space.
Nathaniel Kelly
Implying space matters on my 4TB HDD.
Wyatt Sanchez
>implying it doesn't Enjoy buying another HDD you cunt.
>unless someone has the right hardware the whole point was, way back in the first place in this thread, was webp was superior to jpeg and there was a way to demonstrate this on 4chin which was using a single image vp8 video file since we already need to use external image sharing sites b/c stupid image resolution limits here, why don't I convert it simply to webp so that you can zoom in... to be honest, user, I'm starting to feel you're just trying too hard not to confess webp (vp8) generates high quality images with the least file size
Jonathan Johnson
Applel. Pajeets may be dumb and annoying, but they aren't smug about being dumb and annoying. Applel users are
Levi Stewart
Space does matter, but i've collected 31GB of images in the last 12 years so fair call - nobody is running out of space to store their jpegs. Audio and video is of course still a big deal.
Samuel Martin
Why do I need to open a video format to enjoy a singular image? Have you thought that maybe this is overcomplicated for a negligible yield?
Juan Mitchell
Compressing "sets" of images like comic books would be useful.
Asher Anderson
>overcomplicated only on this imageboard webp is widely supported elsewhere on the web
Nolan Howard
Atleast Apple users are white.
Blake Diaz
I'm not the other dude you're talking with, but obviously his point isn't that the current implementation isn't ideal - it's that the encoding is better. You're totally right, the current implementation is crap (he's using a webm)
Brandon Sanders
VP8 and no sound makes me sick. gookmoot needs to be beaten with a shovel.
Noah Garcia
yes, thank you >the current implementation is crap also true, but at least for image resolutions that Jow Forums supports, it is fairly easy since you already have to click on the thumbnail to zoom the images in here
by the way >negligible yield I don't think a factor of 3-5 times reduction in size without losing quality isn't negligible imho
Not to mention you can losslessly batch process all your pngs to webp and back and it'll still take like 10 seconds out of your busy schedule
Tyler Rodriguez
If it's lossless then it's not re-encoding anything, so what's the point?
Anthony Ross
It is re-encoding something, just losslessly. Like comverting wav to flac to ape.
Gabriel Gray
>let me just show you these plots without any context whatsoever, not even a fucking title
Jordan Watson
Yep i'm an idiot. Thought you were referring to jpeg/other lossy source.
Luke Gonzalez
This thread is some audiophile tier autism. "lossless" images. Who the fuck cares? We arent professionals dealing with 40MP files. Also good luck trying to make every single image on the internet a compressed one frame video.
David Thompson
You can actually "losslessly" re-convert jpegs with jpegoptim or mozjpeg.
Liam Ramirez
Does it result in a properly compressed / small file, or larger than the original? If the former that's some cool shit that i don't understand.
Mason Davis
>every single image on the internet a compressed one frame video no need to, just here in 4chin b/c stupid file format/resolution regulations
Jaxon Foster
Default setting is it doesn't reconvert images if they end up bigger. I use mozjpeg through jpegoptim and it almost always makes a smaller file but I think mozjpeg must almost be some other format entirely, because the images are smaller but take more power to load and Jow Forums just reconverts them to normal JPEGs.
Landon Sanchez
Its junk, technologically. Its basically cut down VP8. 4x4 blocks only, some basic intraprediction, non-adaptive entropy coding, a simple few-tap deblock filter. Oh, and a fucking retarded design where the alpha plane is another fucking packet, so you need to decode it separately. av1 still picture is better.
Austin Miller
comic books are gay dude.
Lincoln Watson
Nobody in this thread seems to have heard of FLIF, which outperforms WEBP. Unfortunately not much work seems to have been done with FLIF.
actually heard of many alternatives which outperform webp like bpg or flif and tried some of them but none seemed to have the power to dethrone due to troublesome encoding/scalability problems/poor support/lack of features etc
Ayden Jenkins
yep. I don't care so much which is the best, I just want something that works. An encoder and decoder I can use *today*.
Sebastian Wilson
>Webms are easily converted You say that, but I still can't get the hang of producing a good quality/size ratio, when no specific file limit is involved.
