WebP

>WebP

Attached: webpiss.png (1920x1080, 1.72M)

Other urls found in this thread:

xooyoozoo.github.io/yolo-octo-bugfixes/#77-bombay-street&jpg=s&bpg=s
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

>1900 bytes
I agree user, WebP is the best.

FLIF -> Floof -> Furry

18000 bytes has better quality than 1900, who knew?

Wtf does this prove? That webp deals with luma more than chroma? And that's a bad thing?

This entire thing is a completely worthless comparison by someone with no clue what the fuck he's talking about but nice for you to finally come out the closet OP.

>a single vp9 frame over 500 generations
What is this trying to achieve?

>needing to re-compress your image 500 times

Let's see the side by sides of all those formats after 1, 10, and 50 generations for something a bit more realistic.

FLIF is pretty good but still noone supports it.
WebP is already out in the wild and I'm pretty sure the media companies using it would prefer the generational losses and some stupid form of 'security' via media degradation

cope

There's already a webp thread.
It actually started out as a jpg hate thread, so it's understandable how you missed it.

Update to new version of flif and it doesn't support flif files made with earlier versions.

Attached: 1519929571151.png (563x563, 310K)

FLIF is cheating though

jpeg looks a lot better than bpg
why does it have a lower snr
is it because snr is shit for image quality?

what kind of stupid name is "flif" haha. Dumb nerd.

well memed, my friend

It sounds cute

It sounds like something I'd wanna cuddle

free lossless image format

Can anyone explain to me what the point is compare a q-98 17874 bytes file with a q-35 1900 bytes file?

virginity, man
virgins are bored out of their minds
it makes then do things entirely disconnected from the real world

fucking based

When will Hiro add support for webp and other formats?

Here. Have a flif.

Attached: 1534616381012.gif (700x700, 157K)

>When will Hiro add support for webp and other formats?
The day we bring back moot from the dead and remove hiroshimoot. Or once the investors want it for some reason.

Present: Flif
Past: Flaf
Perfect: Fluf

Your wife is cheating

This

yea moot the great innovator, who only added webm because 4mb gifs were literally eating up his wallet

It has an awful lot of noise, so the SNR is... lower.

I didn't say he should have any power. He'd just be a puppet to us of course. But seriously webp support probably never.

Here's an online tool to do comparisons if anyone is interested

xooyoozoo.github.io/yolo-octo-bugfixes/#77-bombay-street&jpg=s&bpg=s

So you could notice that even a q:25 JPEG looks better than a q:35 WebP, but you can't even do that.

WebP = best VHS emulation

1000 generations with cwebp 0.6.1
From left to right: q=25,m=4; q=25,m=6; q=90,m=4; q=90,m=6

ITT: OP is FLIF shill

Attached: WebP generation loss.webm (1200x900, 2.83M)

From the video description on YT
>Yet another generation loss comparison, comparing FLIF, WebP, BPG and JPEG. The first frame of this video shows the lossless images, the next frame shows the sizes at the lowest quality of the range (there is a different quality scale for each format; it is chosen to get roughly the same filesize at the lowest quality), and from then on, quality settings are chosen randomly within the range.

b-b-b-but it's smaller...

>Literally looks like VHS generation loss
Good Post

A true real world use case. I always save out 500 generations of lossy upon lossy compression.
Also lets not take into account WebP also has a lossless mode, and this example is unfairly comparing lossy to lossless compression. Add WebP Lossless and PNG and see what they look like at 500 generations.

kys

>Add WebP Lossless and PNG and see what they look like at 500 generations.
Better, because the comparison uses lossy FLIF (lossy optimization applied by the encoder).
cwebp offers a similar approach for lossless WebP (-near_lossless 0-100), but it's very limited in its file size savings compared to lossy FLIF.