Download .jpg

>download .jpg
>cant edit or open the file
>need to use some shitty website converter to make it a jpg or screenshot the image like a faggot

Who is the fucking pajeet who made this shitty format and how does one get around it?

Attached: Webp-logo-wordmark.svg.png (532x640, 70K)

It's better than JPG and PNG but yeah it sucks that barely anything supports it.

This. Once it's supported on enough image viewers and editors, then there will be no excuse not to use it.

Hiro wants to save money and bandwidth but won't support this

Yeah because he is a massively retarded faggot just like OP.

>better than JPG and PNG

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

>q98 vs q35
>17874 bytes vs 1900 bytes
>webm version used was already outdated when this image was first made
>500 generations because every single user downloads an image, edits it, and saves it again at q35 500 times in a row
When will you clinically brain dead idiots finally fuck off?

Webp looks terrible after even a single edit
After about 10 edits you literally cannot tell what the original image was anymore
go glow in the dark somewhere else googleshill

When will this ever EVER happen in the real world.

This comparison is horribly outdated.
From an old thread:
>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

Attached: 1551352767169.webm (1200x900, 2.83M)

it can happen very easily on Jow Forums

Then don't set the quality so low or just save it losslessly altogether. Either way I doubt that's true.

>low detail and barely any colors
>still looks terrible
you're not proving the point you were trying to prove

Mind you, you will only have results that good when compressing small images. Larger images will suffer noticeably (mostly when it comes to colors), but it's nowhere near as bad as in the FLIF comparison.

Attached: 1551347734963.png (1920x1025, 1.73M)

>Source: My big fat arse
Sure thing kiddo you keep lying to yourself maybe one day you will believe your own bullshit. The rest of the world that hasn't recently been declared clinically braindead will use webp for websites with a jpg fallback to save tons of bandwitdh.
Also
>Still using an image that has been outdated before it was released years ago to shill your failed bullshit
>calling others glow in the dark shills
The absolute fucking state of this consumer larper board.

I'm not arguing that it's better than FLIF (at least if we completely ignore speed, compatibility and encoder maturity). It's simply not as bad as in the FLIF comparison.

>can't even spell bandwidth
>thinks his opinion matters

And even if you were right, which you're not.
Implementation doesn't make it good, just means that webdevs will sacrifice quality for bandwidth

It is as bad as that comparison when you feed it an actual image with lots of colors instead of the retarded examples you posted

Not them but your argument is literally
>h-heh you made a typo, tough luck pal, your argument is now invalid

>Haha he made a typo I totally btfo'd him fellow epic redditors so now I can continue to pull out shit from my arse and act as if it were facts
Again, fuck off kiddo.
>just means that webdevs will sacrifice quality for bandwidth
If you seriously think webdevs edit the webp image time and time again and save it at q35 instead of using a lossless file that gets compressed ONCE to save bandwidth you are even more retarded than I have assumed.

>cant edit or open the file
Install Windows 10 build 1903 and stop clinging to a 10 years old OS.

See It's the same picture used in one of those FLIF comparisons (to be specific, it was an answer to this screenshot).

Attached: 1544710654818.png (1280x720, 954K)

For me, it's FLIF, AV1, and OPUS for all future media

a current comparision between jpg, flif, webp?

>reconverting a file over and over again
What a retarded performance metric

>nyamota

Why FLIF and not AVIF?

>Who is the fucking pajeet who made this shitty format
Google, using some technology they then acquired from soneone else

It's lighter than png's with simmilar quality. Why would you need to recompress pictures?

s-source?

Attached: 10472409.jpg.png (1366x768, 884K)

this
you would be laughed off if you tried to bring that up when comparing audio codecs for instance

see

Generation loss is a bigger issue for images than for video and audio. Not because its inherently worse for images, but because images are much more likely to get recompressed over and over again (e.g. by people who edit them or websites).

This is the world we live in. Every web service recompresses the shit out of files.

>every web service recompresses the shit out of files.
what a retarded feature

thanks user
(the crop is probably better)

Here you go nigger. Just download the file format support from the windows store.

Attached: Untitled.jpg (1138x835, 124K)

I don't have this issue, maybe your browser or file types. I agree webp is shit.

>calls others niggers
>uses Windows
What a faggot, pajeet calling the nigger black.

>HDDs is free
Yeah.

Disable webp, so you get real images instead of that garbage.

only niggers would be retarded enough to not know how to open webp files

>It's better than...PNG
We've had this thread several fucking times this year alone
They fucked up, it could be hundreds of time better at what it does than PNG and JPG, but it will never supplant them until they split the fucking format to do EXACTLY what PNG and JPG do in this very moment

what a shock. a retarded Jow Forumsenius sticking to using shit formats nobody else in the world dreams of using. don't forget to install gentoo too, dickhead.

>AV1 and Opus
>nobody else in the world dreams of using
Hm.

AV1 encoding is a resource hungry process, it's not feasible for everyday use.

Sure, but you can't really say nobody uses it, when YT serves AV1 videos for months now.

>download some random .webp file from google images.
>open it in IrFanView
>get this pop-up
>change the extension
>everything is fine
>...
>see this thread and people spurging

Kek.

Attached: Untitled.png (417x165, 7K)

>It's better
>one file extension both for lossy and lossless images