Okay so what's the fucking deal with webp?

Tell that to 9gag, they struggled with using animated webp because compression assumes static simple repeat-able motions in a perfect loop. It's still there if you need it for that but people mainly used GIF for posting mute videos not looped animations in a website so animated webp won't get much recognition especially when animated SVG exists.

>it's shit
You're shit.

>Begone, foul Google shill.
Got a better alternative beside pre alpha alpha alpha alpha FLUF? I'm supporting it because it's open source, you don't have to pay royalties to use it, firefox already bent the knee, and iToddlers are infuriated by it.

I don't know, but I'm sure it's nefarious.

Jesus everything's bloated to you fuckers

Not to me, I don't give a shit. I have 1 gigabit internet and a like 4TB of free storage in raid 10, getting even hundreds of 1MB lossless webp files instead of a lossless PNG ones wouldn't be noticeable for me. However the problem is these files are going to be hosted on a website by a server so 2 things happens when they reduce file size across all their content:
1.) Content loads faster for users across all internet connections. While you may have 1 gigabit internet, servers are usually limited to 1-10Mbps bandwidth per user to prevent ddos like failures. That 1MB files size reduction means users are server their content quicker and thus more likely to stay on the site.
2.) Bandwidth costs go down, resource requirements are reduced for hosting.

Now that we're on the subject the REALLY juicy stuff from webp is their recently implemented near_lossless param meant to compete with PNG crushers for a fraction of the resources. Pic related is 337KB made encoded with level 9 PNG lossless compression.

Attached: test.png (526x615, 336K)

And here is the webp with said param passed and -m 6 compression used. Took me about 5 seconds to encode and resultant file size is 186KB or about half the size of the PNG. What I don't know yet is whether this uses 4:2:0 lossy compression or RGB lossy compression.

files.catbox.moe/czqikk.webp

Unless you mean short animated stuff like this, I can't comprehend why anybody creates gifs in the current year. It hurts my soul every time, when I see a video clip that has been violently wrangled into a picture format, ruining the image quality and bloating the file size for no reason. Stuff like this gif - perfectly ok. Converting videos into gifs - please vacate the gene pool

Attached: 1546333872524.gif (128x128, 186K)

>png of a mpeg-4 source

Why can't we post webp anyway?

And here is a regular max quality lossy webp. Just 60KB.

files.catbox.moe/h959hb.webp

Still valid lossless compression metric, if anything the noise makes it harder for webp to crush the file size further.

Because like 50% of americans have more money than brains, they spend $1,000+ on a cellular device with an apple logo slapped on. Problem is can't render webp images, you can barely play webms by jumping through a bunch of hoops. Anyway gookmoot will not easily alienate these cash cows browsing Jow Forums on their overpriced phones with ads running everywhere. Firefox already gave in but apple is going to be the stick in the mud for webp now.

GIF is lossless. GIF can be optimized to make it smaller. GIF is always decoded on the CPU, so it always plays at full quality everywhere. GIF loops properly and seamlessly in every player without messing with a playback mode.

>Stream #0:0: Video: webp, argb, 526x615, lossless, 25 tbr, 25 tbn, 25 tbc
That's fucking bonkers.

Anyone know what near-lossles did?

Attached: 1478201807359.jpg (775x837, 69K)

No reason to make video clips into gifs. The source video is already as good as it's going to look, and it's a fraction of the size of the gif abomination

Reminder

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

Fuck

I mean this is the board that thinks RAII makes your programs worse.

>bpg and webp around 10% the size of the other formats
I like flif as a concept, and think it should start encouraging its own adoption, but this is not a great comparison

Why is flof still in the alpha stage anyway? I kept hearing about year after year after year but nothing to show for it, is it just abandonware now? Also what the FUCK does transcoding an image 500 times over have to do with real world use? Are there people who really do that?

>the webp actually looks better than the original png
wot

framecompare.com/screenshotcomparison/2BC1NNNU

Attached: 1520551508256.jpg (512x498, 30K)

Agreed it sucks and they're forcing the garbage on us

well, the last commit was 8 months ago and all it did was change their website from http to https

This, I wish more people would drop a grand on a fucking locked down phone with a fruit on it so I wouldn't feel so overwhelmed with my massively stupid financial decisions.

Attached: 1465101708732.jpg (800x800, 319K)

>Because like 50% of americans have more money than brains, they spend $1,000+ on a cellular device with an apple logo slapped on. Problem is can't render webp images
Thank fucking god. I hate iOS. Apple needs to hold strong. Anything that supports lossy images in any way should be unacceptable by now. Artifacts should be a thing of the past.

it's dead, Jim

It has nothing to do with android you retarded faggot

No but it has everything to do with apple. There is now a format that makes jpg, gif AND png obsolete and defunct, has 0 royalties, is open source, and supported by firefox AND edge now, but apple still won't adopt it because they pander to fucking morons and don't give a shit about an ACTUAL revolutionary thing. Instead they're now selling $1,000 monitor stands.

Think of it like chrome, if they create a free standard that they own and get everyone to adopt it. Control of the internet, all the features they pushed in web standards like the hidden secret link tracking and other anti-user garbage.

>that makes jpg, gif AND png obsolete
Top kek, you don't know shit. Kys shill

This would be complete feasibly if it weren't fucking open source. If google truly was interested in spreading their super top sekrit malware everywhere then they lost the chance they made the whole thing open source.

chromium.googlesource.com/webm/libwebp/ /refs/heads/1.0.2/src/

what the hell is FLIF?

I don't know what's going on in this image but I'm impressed

Has it been audited?

Yeah, I thought so.

Basically an image encoder that tried to compete with webp but couldn't keep up.

it does get audited, but that's beyond the point, it does not have to be closed source to be evil, it just has to be widespread.

No doubt else it wouldn't have become part of ffmpeg, gimp, krita, etc.

Well the freetards left flif to rot in the sun so we have to put up with it. What surprises me is this thing is going to be open source for like what, 10 years now? During ALL this time not a single freetard took like 15 minutes to read the source code and sound the alarm for google spyware?

I don't think that's the case with WebP. In contrast to their video coding formats, WebP offers a real benefit over the de facto standards. They also put quite a lot of work into making libwebp good, while libvpx is still a horrible piece of software.

>What I don't know yet is whether this uses 4:2:0 lossy compression or RGB lossy compression.
Lossless ARGB (as the losses get introduced by the encoder, the compression afterwards is still lossless).
developers.google.com/speed/webp/docs/webp_lossless_bitstream_specification

>GIF is lossless.
After forcing a 256 color palette. And please don't bring up 24-bit GIF, because that shit is large beyond comprehension.
>GIF can be optimized to make it smaller.
Only to a certain extent. You can try to emulate what a video coding format is doing by only displaying the changes with each new frame. The compression itself is still horribly inefficient by today's standards.

Reminder that this is horribly outdated.

It shows how bad early libwebp versions handled generation loss.
>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.
WebP and BPG performed so poorly, because they discarded too much information with each generation. Newer libwebp versions barely have this problem for small resolution images and "only" fuck up the colors for high resolution images.

It's even worse if you look at their current version (v0.3), which was released on Apr 28, 2017. It's such a shame. A really interesting format, but its codecs still require a lot of work.