Replaces jpegs, pngs and gifs by being faster and smaller

Mozzilla wants to push apng, Google wants to push webp. because neither will support both they are both not gaining mass support

This and Apple will support neither. People kinda want their pictures to display in their web pages when viewed on iPhone.

>apparently requiring bitshifting and such.
What is the problem with bitshifting?

>apparently requiring bitshifting
the horror

I looked it up after I posted, apparently google does support apng now and firefox started webp not long ago, i'm old news

That would be a matter of "too little, too late". The infighting happened for so long that both APNG and WEBP were all but abandoned. That's why exists. Both are trying again and hoping this time it might stick.

they would have to re-write most of the code and they don't want to do that.

If it works, don't change it.

What's wrong with JPEG? Didn't Google recently improve its capabilities?

Attached: libjpeg-vs-guetzli.jpg (480x200, 12K)

there's nothing wrong with bitshifting
if you write a compressed data format without it you're doing something wrong

There's been a wip patch for it on the Dev tracker for years. It's in waterfox already, but hopefully mozzarella add it

>posts a picture quality comparison
>as a jpg

webkit is for fags

It's locked to VP8, 8-bit colour depth, and 4:2:0 chroma subsampling. In other words: it's trash.

>Good compression
>Low complexity
>High quality
A modern, viable image format meets at least one of these requirements. Good image formats like FLIF or BPG meet more than just one. For WebP: pick none. The only reason there is such a thing as WebP adoption is because some hack at Google cobbled it together and Google decided that it was good enough and declared it its new format. It's only good when compared to positively ancient formats. Instead we should be supporting FLIF and BPG. And even for BPG, we should see if there are any improvements we could import from AV1 development. WebP is completely worthless trash.

Comparisons:
flif.info/example.html
xooyoozoo.github.io/yolo-octo-bugfixes/#cologne-cathedral&webp=s&bpg=s

Safari actually supports APNG now. All major browsers do accept for prob IE

>gifs
doubt. webp is static image.

>APNG
shame it literally sucks ASS

Attached: 1521111360010.jpg (723x508, 104K)

Animated webp is a thing, just even less supported than webp.

webm of the example used included.

webp is a dead format. webm is nice though

Attached: 1527746055081.webm (814x668, 2.93M)

This. WEBP is a single-frame On2 VP(something) in a modified container

Browser support.

>how many articles have you read this week that include an image seemingly just for the sake of having an image and not being all text?
I don't read too many articles but I can thank uBlock origin to block any images above 50kB from loading on non-whitelisted websites.

>WEBP

>WEBRAAAAP

Worst name for a file format. If it was called diarrhoea normies would remember it, but not webp.

Apng, flif, webp
Only good one is flif
All will die to av1

>libjpeg-vs-guetzli.jpg

Attached: hmm.png (488x482, 42K)

Except it is, a lot of news websites along with ebay and facebook now use webp. It's getting so popular that even the SJW browser is going to adopt it now. Only faggot apple doesn't want to adopt it now. Problem was webp was seemingly abandoned in favor of the more efficient HEIF but after royalty fee disputes everyone pretty much said fuck it and switched to webp. Google pretty much uses webp in all of their products by this point too.

zdnet.com/article/firefox-and-edge-add-support-for-googles-webp-image-format/

Attached: 1538263592818.jpg (800x800, 61K)

Adding to this: 1.0.0 webp wipes the floor with png now.

pic related is image processed with pngcrush: 312KB

webp is about 50% smaller: my.mixtape.moe/axyqhi.webp

The only way for PNG to even come close to lossless webp is with heavy compute intensive lossy encoding (ie color dithering).

Attached: out.png (900x970, 311K)

Fuck webp, it's not supported by most photo editors or viewers. I don't give a shit about small optimisations, when I have 1gbps internet and I can load a page of 4k PNGs without feeling any performance hit.

The benefit isn't for you, it's for hosting which speeds up loading and reduces costs. You may have 1gbps internet but it doesn't mean websites can deliver content to thousands to millions of people at 1gbps.

third party image viewers have supported webp for a while now, even image editors like gimp support webp too

Anything google supports them out of the box.

Where web really shines now is lossy compression though.

pic related is jpg transcoded from the PNG with transparency removes and saved with 50% quality: 80KB

webp transcoded from the same PNG with transparency removed is about 50% smaller at 80% quality setting and somehow looks better: my.mixtape.moe/gopbcv.webp

JPG is fucking done.

Attached: out_no_alpha_lossy.jpg (900x970, 79K)

horry sheet

How the fuck does Jow Forums still not have webp image support? Wouldn't this save like a ton of bandwidth?

Attached: 1436465738097.jpg (541x541, 37K)

It used to be shit but not anymore. Encoding performance has improved exponentially and I think it has now surpassed jpg by more than 50% efficiency.

The only real problem is lossy 4:2:0 encoding which tends to mess with colors but they're much more pleasant to look at than blocking artifacts from jpg.

They should use AV1 intra instead of VP8.

fucking HOW?

Attached: jpgvswebp.jpg (1440x1280, 155K)

It took webp almost a decade to offer encoding performance and efficiency so great people now literally can't afford to NOT use it for large scale websites. Don't expect a miracle with AVIF, it'll take time. In the meantime webp will become the one size fits all image codec.

Also it's pushed as a way to make the web faster by reducing data requirements, when by far the better way to do that would be to remove some images altogether

Yeah, optimizing is simply not exiting enough. The web could be made so much faster just by using png/jpg correctly, webm instead of gif, not having 50+ tracking Javascripts, etc etc.

But no one wants that.

There's no way to use png/jpg correctly when webp curb stomps both of them.

why fix what aint broke

nobody cares about your hipster filetype

Because it is broken, see

APNG is better.

There's just no support for it.
If I can't easily save something as webp then you're damn right I'm never gonna produce anything in that format

>Why is that? Is it the name lame or something?
The compression benefits weren't worth the cost of not working with all programs.
Think about how many shitty programs are out there which will display JPG images but not WEBP. Unless the vast majority of those change, people are going to stick with the format that's supported everywhere.

Maybe AVIF will provide enough benefit to overcome inertia, but I'm doubtful. I think we're pretty much stuck with PNG & JPG at this point.

see Android, chrome, gimp natively supports it, other programs can support it through 3rd party plug ins. That's a lot of support if you ask me.

>tfw no webp encoding support for termux ffmpeg on android
this is fucking bullshit

Attached: Screenshot_2018-10-08-01-30-38(1).jpg (720x495, 115K)

Wooow ebay and facebook, two sites I never use.
Also, you're talking about displaying webp. How do I output files in webp? By digging for some random 3rd party plugin? Using a dedicated file converter? Fuck that

jpeg is slow and actually pretty bad at compressing images, but since every patent associated with it is long expired, the security bugs have been shaken out of all the main libraries for handling them, and everybody already has their pictures saved in that format, it's a safe choice.

>Wooow ebay and facebook, two sites I never use.
A very huge audience does.

>Also, you're talking about displaying webp. How do I output files in webp? By digging for some random 3rd party plugin? Using a dedicated file converter? Fuck that
GIMP now natively supports webp lossy AND lossless encoding.

If you're too brainlet to use the cwebp CLI encoder GIMP now encodes webp files.

idk apple is finally on board with av1 so things might change in the future
webp is dead though

>GIMP
Wake me up when PS has it

Apple doesn't matter anymore. AV1 is still at least a decade away from being relevant and websites now can't afford to not use webp given how much support it has and insane efficiency over jpg and png now.

>A very huge audience does
Not an argument

>Apple doesn't matter anymore
Cope.

So you only load tracker pixels? :-)

Is installing a plug in really that intellectually challenging for you?

telegraphics.com.au/sw/product/WebPFormat#webpformat

>Not an argument
How is "A huge audience uses X" not an argument in a discussion about adopting a standard?

Apple is as anti-consumer as it gets. Why would they matter?

Attached: Capture_1.jpg (620x665, 62K)

Maybe not for a braindead mong like you but it is for companies who want fo save bandwidth.

Why do you immediately think of, and bring up intelligence when someone refuses to install a plugin? Imagine being so full of yourself that you associate installing a shitty plugin with "Damn Im smart"

Not to mention that Apple has their own image format, HEIF, that's basically the h.265 intra coder. I can see the big players starting to treat their images like youtube treats videos, 'transcoding' them into 10 different formats at various qualities and choosing based on target, while the other 99% will just keep using jpegs.

Attached: standards.png (500x283, 22K)

Because that's how you're making it out to be. Webp has massive encoding/decoding support now and you're going "hurrr webp is dead durr".

HEIF outside the apple ecosystem is basically dead. Now images just have to be transcoded to webp but apple won't let that happen because how anti-consumer they are.

Why webp over BPG or FLIF?
Is it just because muh google?

Support, adoption, better enc/dec efficiency compared to png/jpg now.

What format should I use for manga collectiong?
It's over 5TB and I'd love to save some space without blowing image quality.

Mostly because it's royalty free and afaik there are better webp encoders better than the google reference one that websites like ebay use.

currently Photoshop doesn't support it, so there's an immediate problem

Nah, I simply don't see the point of putting the extra effort in installing that shit.
Why would I do MORE work in order to pump out files in a format that LESS people can open/see, including my main social website Jow Forums?

>anti-consumer
Enough with the jewish buzzwords please.

What formats does your reader support? I suspect optimised PNG is probably the best you'll be able to do.

Webp, specifically the latest google CLI reference encoder (cwebp) for batch processing.

A bat script could go something like this:
for %%f IN (*.png) do (
cwebp "%%~nf.png" -m 6 -q 80 -o "%%~nf.webp"
)

Plug ins exist and gimp already natively supports webp encoding/decoding.

Because they're smaller, load faster, and look better. Jow Forums not supporting webp yet is a huge pain in the ass though, I agree.

see

whoops meant to link to

The plugins are iffy, last time I checked they don't even support alpha channels.

Things have changed, anyway webp is the future imho until avif has matured enough. Sure encoding of webp is not natively supported in commercial software but that's because they always take their sweet time adopting new formats. We didn't see HEVC encoding in many popular commercial video editors for a while either.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say. If the program uses can't open WEBP then any compression benefits it gives are meaningless.

I highly doubt that and even it it didn't support webp it would be worth user's time looking for an alternative one that does. At minimum it would cut his 5TB stash to 2TB or less for similar visual quality.

how is it dead when google basically uses it for everything or tons of websites are adopting it?