.webp

>hqdn3d=5.0:5.0:0.0:0.0
I could start my usual rant, but at least you chose slightly less obnoxious values this time, so I give it a pass.

thanks m8, I'm still only using it as a leg up for VP8 intra frame encoding to try to ger close to recent webp compression efficiency.

Attached: ad9N5Ed_700b.webm (700x394, 20K)

Attached: ad9N5Ed_700b.jpg (700x394, 47K)

Attached: 02d8c32692bf536135327cddf291bc011417026884_full.webm (640x507, 24K)

We wouldn't have to do this if a certain GOOK gave us webm support already.

Attached: 02d8c32692bf536135327cddf291bc011417026884_full.png (640x507, 336K)

*webp

Attached: Kyousuke_and_kirino_%5C_date%5C_.webm (1280x720, 63K)

Attached: Kyousuke_and_kirino_%5C_date%5C_.png (1280x720, 1.1M)

The AOL .art of the modern era.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WebP#Support

Even firecocks and IE supports it now.

What's Apple's agenda in not supporting this? (thus preventing it from getting traction)

They'd rather see HEIF on top, which does provide a better lossy compression. Problem is nobody else wants to deal with an image format based on HEVC.

It's a feature, also apple is losing relevancy quickly. 4 months ago they said it was a bull market and it's still tanking with ~200B lost in value.

Barely, the only redeeming part of it is HDR support.

Attached: Screenshot_2018-12-06-10-50-25(1).jpg (720x962, 129K)

Now that I think about it, I only ever saw comparisons between BPG and WebP, never HEIF and WebP. I assume they are somewhat comparable, but of course I can't say for sure.

Did you know image files are used outside of displaying in browsers so despite that support they are unusable and can't be sent to other people? Not to mention they seem pretty shit for editing but that's probably just because the people who use them make trash. Your browser could open .art files too. The problem is everything else.

Amongst graphics software,Picasa(from version 3.9),[25]PhotoLine,[26]Pixelmator,[27]ImageMagick,[28]XnView,[29]IrfanView,[30]GDAL,[31]Aseprite[32]andGIMP(from version 2.10)[33]all natively support WebP. Telegraphics has released a free plug-in that enables WebP support inAdobe Photoshop.[34]The plugin was last updated in 2013 so it saves using an older revision of the WebP format. A more current beta Photoshop plugin has also been released by fnordware.[35]Imagine[36]andPaint.NET[37]support WebP via plugins. GIMP up to version 2.8 also supported WebP via a plugin,[38]later this plugin was shipped in GIMP 2.9 branch, and received multiple improvements.[39]Google has also released a plug-in for Microsoft Windows that enables WebP support inWindows Photo Viewer,Microsoft Office 2010,FastPictureViewer,[40]and any other application that usesWindows Imaging Component.[41]

I bet nobody at Google cares if people still use JPG and PNG to send each other pictures in a hundred years. It's all about saving bandwidth. Websites benefit most from more efficient image formats and the most important compatibility aspects for them are browsers.

Only chromium based browsers support it. Edge, Firefox, etc don't. Neither does Windows natively without an outdated addon.
A handful of websites use it when they detect a Chormium user agent to save bandwidth, but most don't because if the user tries to save the image or share it through some chat app they'll end up with something unusable outside the browser.

WebP, APNG, JP2k, HEIF, AV1F, all DoA image formats. jpeg and png are simply too ubiquitous and "good enough" to ever be replaced.

>Still image
>WebM
user, what the fuck?

i downscaled some hentai comics and converted them to lossy webp to read on my tablet. Was okay.

>jpeg and png are simply too ubiquitous and "good enough" to ever be replaced.
Isn't that a bit rash? No new format will overthrow well established standards in a day or two. Some of these formats are DoA because other more effective formats are already in development before they managed to get traction. But all of them?
Who knows how the world of image compression will look like in one or two decades, when all those newer image formats are around for as long as our beloved JPG and PNG.

>Who knows how the world of image compression will look like in one or two decades
there will be no more computers and we'll all be dead.

jpeg was introduced in like 1992. It's still the defacto lossy image format everywhere. It's not going to be replaced anytime soon, if ever.

compare the filesize

this

Well, yes. But you've also lost a lot of detail in the process. It would be more interesting to see a comparison of a lossless source and a WebM/JPG version with roughly the same size.

VP8 doesn't have lossless like webp afaik.

Anyway this shitty little hack would be boss for sharing high-res photos across Jow Forums. All you'd need on the receiving is a script to turn the hacked webm to a png

>VP8 doesn't have lossless like webp afaik.
So? Only the source file should be lossless for a proper comparison. Both VP8 and JPG would apply lossy compression and by bringing them to roughly the same file size level, you could compare how well both preserve the quality.
>All you'd need on the receiving is a script to turn the hacked webm to a png
ffmpeg -i input.webm -v:frames 1 out.png
will extract the first frame from an input WebM. ffmpeg's defaults for image compression are kinda shit, so the resulting PNG is quite bloated.
Although I don't see the point. Yes, the WebM makeshift solution allows you to post high-res photos, but if you want to share them there are easier solutions out there and they have less losses involved.

>tips fedora

ACTCHUALLY, you can save them as webp with 0 transcoding involved. Not sure if ffmpeg or cwebp can even do this, but it is possible.

Attached: cadet_bonespurs_reporting_for_duty.jpg (737x491, 36K)

Save what as WebP?

The hacked webm without transcoding done. Something about a riff header.

Ah, now I get it.
It would certainly be worthwhile, but none of the tools offered by libwebp seem to be able to do this and my ffmpeg version isn't compiled with webp support, so I can't test that.

>WebM for still images

You'll hang for this. I'll see to that.

It's literally just alternate jpeg.

>supports animation
>supports transparency in lossy AND lossless static AND animated encoding
not really

what shit programs dont implement free codecs? free.

>Google image search a pic
>Comes up with pic with png extension
>Drag to desktop

> converts it to webp automatically

fun fact: that's what 90% of "data savers" do irl

It's the best format for lossless. When we abandon PNG for webp it will be a huge boon, almost double the compression and still MUCH faster to encode and decode.

Safari is the only holdout, all other browsers support webp.

PNG has lots of non-default options though, as a standard. Supporting it is its own huge cost.

isnt it free and open source?

wtf is wrong w png?

jpg is trash

>requires seperate format for animation (ie APNG)
>lossless compression sucks ass, needs hacked encoders that use 100X more resources than lossless webp and still leave a bigger file size
>

Yep, absolute garbage. Every time I happen to receive a .webp, I send it straight to the recycle bin and delete it. Why the fuck would I save an image I can't share and send with other people? FIX IT.

Yeah, you're not supposed to encode non-computer graphics with png. What's your point?

What's this got to do with png? He's pushing for webp support by pointing out that even webm stillframes are better than using jpeg

Look at the filenames

Well then he's pushing webp as a png replacement too

png was never used or meant for that though.

It's the only lossless image format Jow Forums allows.

OH NO NO NO

Attached: webp a shit.png (1141x557, 405K)

What settings did pic related choose to encode WebP? If it's anything like WebM, it could've ended up with an inflated file size due to unreasonably low "quantisizer values".

took a screenshot of the thread with firefox
did pngquant --nofs -s9 on it
used your ffmpeg thing, used a shit load of ram DO NOT USE IT IF YOU DON'T HAVE 4G RAM FREE - mpv didn't show anything, just black

1.6M Dec 7 12:50 'Screenshot_2018-12-07 g - webp - Technology - Jow Forums.png'
592K Dec 7 12:50 'Screenshot_2018-12-07 g - webp - Technology - Jow Forums-or8.png'
738K Dec 7 12:59 'Screenshot_2018-12-07 g - webp - Technology - Jow Forums.webm'

can't comment on quality cos couldn't see it

here's a tip if you want to ffmpeg images selectively

[Added Associations]
.config/mimeapps.list
image/png=conv.desktop;

.local/share/applications/conv.desktop
[Desktop Entry]
Type=Application
Name=to indexed colours
Exec=/usr/bin/sh conv.sh
#Exec=pngquant --nofs -s9 -f -- %f
StartupNotify=false
#Terminal=true
NoDisplay=true
Icon=media-record

put your ffmpeg thing in your bin/conv.sh

>wtf is wrong w png?
PNG is only effective for certain kinds of images. For everything with gradients it's horribly inefficient.
Lossless WebP doesn't have this glaring efficiency gap for different image types and beats PNG's compression in almost every instance.

See littlesvr.ca/apng/gif_apng_webp.html
WebP improved a bit since then, but not by much. The only way to get close to APNG's efficiency is by using the -min_size option, which does have tendency to mess with the footage.
That being said, this test only shows that WebP isn't efficient at handling GIFs. It might be different if you convert a clip directly to APNG/WebP. Haven't done this yet.

Attached: GIF_APNG_WebP_Results.png (672x1237, 38K)

help
when i open the image my computer starts mining bitcoins

>That being said, this test only shows that WebP isn't efficient at handling GIFs.
Well, all the artifacts generated by the reduced colorspace along with an unoptimized color palette is obviously going to hurt compressibility quite a bit, potentially offsetting the gains from better compression algorithms in that case.

Unfortunately the only solution is to extend it to 2 seconds with the "-t 2" param however this adds a "pulsing" artifact of a video trying to render 2 identical frames as motion.

How is it possible that the same gook complaining about hosting costs won't let the site use webp? He could literally force adoption by globally limiting image upload file size to 2MB and that would still be more than enough for high quality 8MP high res photos and we could also jump on VP9 webms at the same time. Wankblows/loonix users already have native enc on gimp if they're too stupid to use a CLI and lagdroid users probably already have an app they can use

Attached: 1463328573645.jpg (951x1036, 226K)

Isn't gif maximum filesize is like double webm? He's not even trying to incentivize it.

or just put a WARNING in the OP of boards like pol where lots of screen caps are uploaded
to use pngquant
it would take just a few seconds of a mod's time but obviously they don't care

pngquant is harder to use than lossless webp since it requires a CLI, it also takes longer to encode and is still like 30% bigger than lossless webp anyway.

>"According to 17th-century literature, suspected witches were women who would use a broom handle as a tool for getting high. "Witches" would soak or smother the handle of a broom in hallucinogenic herbs, then penetrate themselves with it to absorb the opiates quicker. After getting high from the drugs, witches would dance erratically and many would pretend to be riding around on their brooms."

inkedmag.com/.amp/culture/masturbation-medicinal-herbs-and-magic-you-wont-believe-the-nsfw-reason-witches-ride-brooms

huh

Attached: broomwitchesfeatured.jpg (1000x618, 955K)

>however this adds a "pulsing" artifact
That wouldn't happen if you'd start to use constant/constrained quality mode.
archive.rebeccablacktech.com/g/thread/68430296/#68434083

Who cares about the difficulty of using CLI? The bigger advantage is to not use lossy optimization.

Interesting and adoption would be minimal if you forced CLI use, remember the average Jow Forumstard has the average intellectual capacitance as a mouse.

cause webm is so limited in adoption? Someone would just make a frontend or webservice for it. People who don't know better will just copy/paste any command on the internet into their computers at any time.

poor google, really pushed it but no one accepted it

>this adds a "pulsing" artifact of a video trying to render 2 identical frames as motion.
no, it's because you probably left -g as 1, so you end up with two separate encodings of the frame

ebay uses it and if IE and firecocks support that must mean it took off in some form.

Edge and Firefox added webp support recently

>WebP, APNG, JP2k, HEIF, AV1F, all DoA image formats. jpeg and png are simply too ubiquitous and "good enough" to ever be replaced.
This, people keep trying to push their autism and no one cares.

WebP is actually in use in lots of places, just not very visible. JP2k was always dead cause licensing, Google itself is trying to kill a useful and ubiquitous free video format, mjpeg.

>Google itself is trying to kill a useful and ubiquitous free video format,
why?

bump

AVIF when?

Attached: 1514994401479.png (2250x1350, 89K)

Oops. Wrong pic.

Attached: 1525556809625.png (2400x1440, 211K)