Try to save image

>try to save image
>.webp
when will this meme end?

Attached: 1524371697682.webm (416x416, 325K)

Other urls found in this thread:

micronations.wikia.com/wiki/File:1498138280549.png
vignette.wikia.nocookie.net/micronations/images/9/90/1498138280549.png/revision/latest?cb=20170819200836&format=original
i.4cdn.org/a/1549424856610.png
css-ig.net/png-tools-overview#overview
upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b2/Vulphere_WebP_OTAGROOVE_demonstration_2.webp/1200px-Vulphere_WebP_OTAGROOVE_demonstration_2.webp
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

>.webp
>convert in honeyview, or similar
It's not that hard op.

Soon I hope

>Try to save image
>It's modern webapp shit and you don't even get the context menu

Can ffmpeg convert webp to png or something?

exactly, it's a waste of time having to convert it.
I'll be fine with webp if the rest of the web and Jow Forums adopts it.

>open .webp image in new tab
>screenshot as .png or .jpg
>crop
easy

it's like you people don't edit images or anything

Why wouldn't you want to use webp? It's not the same shit from 10 years ago anymore, it's better than .jpeg in every way. (and comparability is rising)

Attached: 1549124136075.gif (256x256, 206K)

>convert
>edit
Explain.

because of lack of compatibility with websites and programs. It's not even compatible with Jow Forums either. I'm sure it's a great format, but the adoption rate is slow.

it's just another unnecessary step
paint.net and photoshop cc2018 can't natively open .webp. I had to install a plugin for paint.net and I'm not gonna bother for photoshop.

technology just gets worse as time passes. more advanced, but worse.

Attached: Kornheiser_Why.jpg (600x1040, 75K)

Only 9gag uses webp
You have to go back there, kiddo.

Attached: 1542906409640.jpg (240x219, 16K)

>it's just another unnecessary step
Seems necessary if you want to pilfer the Internet to edit a new dank meme. Also it seems to keep lazy asshats like you from downloading images that you don't own, so maybe let's consider it a win for .webp.

recently started seeing webp from fandom wikis.
the real question here is, why do YOU know that?

Attached: 1407582595455s.jpg (183x232, 11K)

good goyim

Attached: 1540575358726.jpg (900x900, 40K)

>Try to save image
>Its a nigger meme twitter tier image when it comes to the image quality because inferior format like jpg

>try to save image
>it saves

Attached: 1547548590612.png (617x466, 222K)

literally never happened to me

True, I use a userscript that lets me convert webp to jpg in the browser on the fly via my home server and vice versa.

write a user script to select an image and auto convert and download it. sounds like a decent project and should be fun

Yes, if it has access to libwebp.

Just printscrn + crop :^)

>jpg-LARGE

Attached: 7b2.jpg (569x571, 100K)

>what is the Image Max URL userscript

>Brainlet can't convert an image she tried to steal
>Kikeposts, because there's no way to defend being thus dumb

Install the codec retard.

no one is being dumb here, just people failing to understand that having to convert webp in the first place is a waste of time.

Then don't download webp. OP, and everyone else in the thread are just finding something to bitch about. You're all probably the same trannies who complained about gimp, master/slave, and using man.
Basically just kys you mentally ill waste of space.

your point is mute because even Jow Forums doesn't support webp at the moment. and stop projecting your real life frustrations into this thread, no one is hurting you.

Hate to be the beaner with bad news, but being so goddam dumb that you are unable to figure out how to convert webp into PNG is quite literally a personal problem.

no one is insinuating that they don't know how to convert images. do you need a hug? I'm here for you if something bad is happening in your life right now.

>Know Your Meme filename bitching over Twitter filenames

>your point is mute because even Jow Forums doesn't support webp at the moment.
>even
The world would be a bleak place if only Jow Forums supported codecs would exist.

i can literally fucking right click copy the webp image and paste it into irfanview
how retarded are you?

cd /D %~dp1
ffmpeg -y -i "%~n1%~x1" "%~n1%.png"
del "%~n1%~x1"


call it "to-png.bat". make a shortcut and put the shortcut in %APPDATA%\Microsoft\Windows\SendTo

right-click the .webp > sendto > to-png.bat

Exactly, you have to use a program like irfanview to convert it to jpg or png in order to be able to upload it to Jow Forums. It's a waste of time, how hard of a concept is that for you people to understand?

there's no point in complaining because it'll be years before it's accepted on Jow Forums.

It's no different than how you have to remove all audio from any webm you find to post it here.

Where did you find a .webp in the wild ?

>no one is insinuating that they don't know how to convert images.
Yes, you retards are insisting this up until you were told how to convert.
>do you need a hug
Don't touch me, you aids infested tranny faggot.
>I'm here for you if something bad is happening in your life right now.
Yea, and you should leave, because you're the cancer that's ruining 4channel homo.

>drag .jpg onto desktop
>saved as .jfif

Attached: 1504546920010.png (282x250, 55K)

here's one
micronations.wikia.com/wiki/File:1498138280549.png

the url suggests that it's a png, but if you try to drag and drop it to the desktop, it results in a webp

>Saving images in shit formats like jpg/png just because you want to post it on 4ch

Webp is superior. This is cancer.

Not if you click 'original image'
vignette.wikia.nocookie.net/micronations/images/9/90/1498138280549.png/revision/latest?cb=20170819200836&format=original

Webp is the best format for lossless, 10 times faster than PNG both in compression and decompression, and creates MUCH smaller files.

who cares because it's not widely used

If Jow Forums started using it, it'd become much more widely used.

But hiro is a fucking slug and takes centuries to implement anything.

Nobody cares.

>implying everyone has ffmpeg installed and in their system variables
wewwwwwwwwwww

>he doesn't have ffmpeg installed
i want reddirt to leave

ffmpeg's PNG defaults are abysmal. Either do some lossless PNG optimization right afterwards or tweak the ffmpeg command.

>save two images from the same site in the same folder
>one is .jpg
>the other is .jpeg

Attached: 1529610784222.jpg (564x876, 440K)

>Webp is the best format for lossless
Wrong. That would be FLIF.
>10 times faster than PNG both in compression and decompression
Do you have any numbers to back up that claim?
>and creates MUCH smaller files
True

Webp saves fine, displays fine, what more do you want?

Bring back Targa!

can't upload it here

Nor can you pick an arbitrary format from any that gimp or ffmpeg supports.
Actually most browsers can't handle them all either, which sucks for how huge these are by now [even compared to gimp and ffmpeg combined].

Simply convert if you want to post here?

Lossy image formats should be banned.

Png, BMP, TIF, or GTFO

Unless the method of more systematically intentionally reducing quality in a lossy fashion is specified in the file format, people will just create a terrible situation with external edits to implement lossy transformations.

You'll again have JPEG style larger but worse images, and images that go bad from being repeatedly recompressed by automated software that just does it on upload to somewhere.

that is a google proprietary file format,

just take a screenshot of it since its just an image, then you will have it saved in a file format compatible with your device

>Wrong. That would be FLIF.
Only if you ignore compression/decompression speed, FLIF compresses slightly better, but it compresses and decompresses much slower.

>Do you have any numbers to back up that claim?
Just try it ffs.

well, aside from gif, jpg, and png. the only other format that I have seen online is .svg, and that can't be used for obvious reasons.

webp is going to be annoying for while because it's popping up more frequently.

>that is a google proprietary file format,
It's not proprietary you retard. It's fully open source, no patents and supported in Chrome/Chromium, Firefox and Edge.

>Only if you ignore compression/decompression speed
Fair enough.
>Just try it ffs.
Mate, I've been using WebP for quite a while now which is why I'm questioning your outlandish claims.

>Mate, I've been using WebP for quite a while now which is why I'm questioning your outlandish claims.
Ok, here's a quick test I made just now. Using the following png file from /a : i.4cdn.org/a/1549424856610.png

pngcrush --brute 1549424856610.png output.png
time: 3m 57s
size: 3,676,691 bytes

cwebp -lossless -q 100 -m 6 1549424856610.png -o output.webp
time: 0m 20s
size: 2,909,260 bytes

>and if we enable multithreaded compression (not available on pngcrush):
cwebp -lossless -q 100 -m 6 -mt 1549424856610.png -o output.webp
time: 0m 11s
size: 2,909,260 bytes

In other words, it compresses much better than one of the strongest PNG compressors at a MUCH faster speed.

>comparing brute-forced compression (with an inefficient optimizer) vs. standard encoder
My results for the same pic with a Ryzen 7 2700x.

Original size: 3,754,805 bytes
---
ImageMagick (v6.9.9-38):
Command: convert input.png output.png
Time: 2 sec.
Size: 3,722,302 bytes
---
GraphicsMagick (v1.3.31):
Command: gm convert input.png output.png
Time: 1 sec.
Size: 3,722,126 bytes
---
Pingo (v0.98.37):
Command: pingo -s9 -lossless output.png
Time: 5 sec.
Size: 3,612,084 bytes
---
ECT (v0.8.2):
Command: ect -9 --strict output.png
Time: 26 sec.
Size: 3,582,022 bytes
---
cwebp (v1.0.2):
Command: cwebp -z 9 input.png -o output.webp
Time: 10 sec.
Size: 2,909,260 bytes

Command: cwebp -z 1 input.png -o output.webp
Time: 1 sec.
Size: 3,150,748 bytes

Command: cwebp -z 9 -mt input.png -o output.webp
Time: 5 sec.
Size: 2,909,260 bytes

Command: cwebp -z 1 -mt input.png -o output.webp
Time: 1 sec.
Size: 3,150,748 bytes

Didn't realize -z 0 is the fastest lossless preset. With it it took a bit less than one second and produces a file 3,546,906 bytes large.

>comparing brute-forced compression (with an inefficient optimizer) vs. standard encoder
The point was to compare both compressors at their respective best settings, because that is what I use.

And your tests confirm just how much better webp is even at lesser settings. For lossless image compression it is really the best overall codec.

>The point was to compare both compressors at their respective best settings
Which you didn't, since pngcrush isn't the most efficient (neither when it comes to compression efficiency nor speed). If you want to make PNG look even worse than use ZopfliPNG.
>For lossless image compression it is really the best overall codec.
I'm not arguing that it's the most efficient image format when it comes to size/speed.
I'm saying
>FLIF is more efficient when we're looking at pure compression efficiency
>10 times faster (de)compression than PNG is too optimistic
The only thing that comes close (with Pingo) or fullfils that promise (with ECT) is -z 0/1. And then we're still looking at fastest WebP encoding vs. extensive PNG optimization. Using a faster preset like ect -2 or pingo -s1 will reduce the optimization time for the prior example to 3 seconds while still producing smaller files than pngcrush (~3,665,000 bytes in both cases).

>find .JPG on the web
>right click "save image"
>it gets saved as .JFIF

Attached: 220px-Vladislav_Roslyakov.jpg (220x307, 16K)

>Which you didn't, since pngcrush isn't the most efficient
Then show me the results of the most efficient PNG compressor at it's best settings compared to Webp best settings.

Why are you beating around the bush ?

>converting superior formats into inferior ones

>paint.net and photoshop cc2018 can't natively open .webp.
GIMP can.

Attached: 1526473374684.jpg (500x500, 54K)

ITT
>i hate things that are different even if they're 100% better in every way

Just disable webp support in your browser.

Don't worry, webp will end soon as avif gets implemented all over the place.

But that's because audio is intentionally disabled outside of /gif/. If it wasn't, you'd just have retards spamming screamer/noise webms all over the place.

I did with Pingo and ECT.
css-ig.net/png-tools-overview#overview
>Why are you beating around the bush ?
Because I don't like misleading information. It's like when people say that HEVC saves 50% file size compared to AVC, but always forget to mention that this doesn't apply at all for high bitrate encodes. Or when people claim that JPEG always produces smaller files than PNG, ignoring the fact that both formats have their strong suits. Or when people shit on WebP because of that generational loss video made by the FLIF dev (you probably know which one I'm talking about), even though the libwebp version used for the comparison is severely outdated by now.

fuck this menance
why do they on purpose make it hard to save images? I have use F12 all the time to extract images like on shitagram.

>I did with Pingo and ECT.
Says nothing about how they compare against WebP, which is what this discussion is about.

>Because I don't like misleading information.
Fair enough. But as of yet there isn't any misleading information.

AVIF will be great for lossy compression, not lossless.

The benchmark is supposed to prove that they are the most efficient. Look at my prior results for how they compare against WebP.

>Fair enough. But as of yet there isn't any misleading information.
Yes, there was.
Fastest lossless WebP compression is 10 times as fast as slow PNG optimization.
Slowest lossless WebP compression is about as fast as slow PNG optimization.
Normal PNG compression is about as fast as fastest lossless WebP compression.
In all cases WebP produces smaller files.

This is what the prior example showed us.

WebP is better compression but slower encode.
Not useful for realtime generation/compression but perfect for compressing ahead of time and storing.

>using Google botnet image format that nobody uses

>nobody
The existence of merely one user disproves your universal claim.
upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b2/Vulphere_WebP_OTAGROOVE_demonstration_2.webp/1200px-Vulphere_WebP_OTAGROOVE_demonstration_2.webp

Q.E.D.
Please rephrase your statement.

They're a nobody.

>but the adoption rate is slow.
The adoption rate is practically 0.

I think it's the site forcing you to do so. I recently clicked on an image, the url even ended with .jpg but when downloading I get the webp

Didn't they change it to LARGE.jpg?

>the adoption rate is slow.
>The adoption rate is practically 0.
So? The adoption rate of JPEG was practically 0 once. The adoption rate of PNG was practically 0 once. The adoption rate of every format in existence was practically 0 once.

you know you can play webms with sound off by default, right? no point in force stripping sound off webms, you retarded faggot.

>So? The adoption rate of JPEG was practically 0 once. The adoption rate of PNG was practically 0 once. The adoption rate of every format in existence was practically 0 once.
WebP is over 8 years old and nobody supports it at all.

who?

>Why wouldn't you want to use webp?
because there's no defaults and no way to tell between lossy and lossless in the format
nothing changes since they made it that way

Cry me a river, you little bitch. It's the way it is and the way it's staying. Suck it.

All major browsers except Safari do. That is ultimately what's important for websites.

>no way to tell between lossy and lossless in the format
Yes, there is. The information whether it's lossless or not is stored in the RIFF header.

it's been 5 years, and you still don't get it
split the format to lossy and lossless, make the extension different, then MAYBE people will start thinking about it
until then, webp can go fuck itself

>nobody supports it at all.
Firefox
Chrome / Chromium
Microsoft Edge

GIMP
Geeqie
Krita
Every Qt program
Most free software in general

Get with the times, grandpa.

>split the format to lossy and lossless, make the extension different,
Just call your lossless images foo.ll.webp
or foo.lossless.webp. No need for a separate extension.

>All major browsers except Safari do. That is ultimately what's important for websites.
Firefox added support like one week ago, IE added it late 2018 if I'm not mistaken.
Browser support is important, not denying that but it has no use yet. Sure, now I get forced to download the .webp file when using Google search but since no website supports it, I can't really use it in the webp format

Websites that don't support it are broken.
WebP is the new standard image format. Inevitable fact.

standardize it or watch it die
if your standard isn't a standard, you'll watch it die