What is this shit. Why the hell won't it go away?

OK provide a better alternative.

>be Google
>have a homepage that is literally a small logo and a search box
>it's several megabytes anyway because it's full of shit
>so of course the only possible solution is to come up with a new image format to make your image a few kilobytes smaller
>the homepage is still several megabytes, but who the fucking cares, you already pushed your shitty ""standard"" to pretend that you're a great corporation
The fact that someone can unironically defend this makes my soul cry.

>Why the hell won't it go away?
How can something not go away that isn't even there yet?
The only times I encountered webp in the wild, is on customer review pics on aliexpress. those sometimes are webp

Now tell me how an image format is botnet.

FUCK webp. cant even save them properly

A highly supported and widely used modern image format that replaces JPG, PNG, and GIF with higher efficiency lossy/lossless compression and support for transparency even in lossy compression. In addition to replacing all 3 current image format it also replaces PNG crushers with the newly refined near_lossless param which encodes images to ARGB and performs PSNR lossy compression on them.

Attached: 1_MgohJo6Pl42TNQKi32LuWw.png (1600x1000, 586K)

It's also unnoficially supported on Jow Forums via a webm hack script which encodes a single image that loops inside a VP8 Webm video.

LOONIX

mkdir out
for f in *.{png,jpg}; do ffmpeg -loop 1 -i "$f" -g 1 -c:v libvpx -deadline best -cpu-used 0 -qmin 22 -qmax 22 -t 1 -r 1 "out/${f%.*}.webm"; done

WANKBLOWS

for %%f IN (*.png, *.jpg) do (
ffmpeg -loop 1 -i "%%f" -g 1 -c:v libvpx -deadline best -cpu-used 0 -qmin 22 -qmax 22 -t 1 -r 1 "%%~nf.webm"
)

Attached: 1_MgohJo6Pl42TNQKi32LuWw.webm (1600x1000, 48K)

What compression tool do you recommend?

Depends on the source. In some cases the near_lossless param with a strength of 40-80 will produce a lower file size image with the same quality as one encoded with lossy webp with a strength of 80. Mainly due to having full chroma resolution AFAIK.

Absolute autism. Seek help.

Attached: 825375d7db15c3122658f78e403fae4a3acfcd8a13b41a2566bd886b3c3abd78.jpg (390x329, 71K)

>that image
Just fuck my contrast up bro, the orange tones in the shadows are completely gone

i understand why google created webp, but what i don't understand what technical benefits it offers over png.

smaller file size

Get your hands on any cwebp version >= 1.0.0
Everything below sucks.

You can fuck right off with that shit.

Mainly better compression (especially for the sort of content PNG compression has trouble with). The drawback is that it doesn't support progressive decoding at all.

I didn't make it but it does as intended. For example compare the quality of JPG related with the static webm I'll link to. Then notice the file size reduction.

Better efficiency, Lossless ARGB Webp images are 20-40% smaller than compression level 9 lossless PNG images. And now with further optimizations and tweaks near_lossless ARG Webp images with similar visual quality are 20% or more smaller than lossy PNG images

Attached: Hatsune.Miku.full.428483.jpg (1064x1500, 1.78M)

and here's the static webm version of it

Attached: Hatsune.Miku.full.428483.webm (1064x1500, 232K)

The same way Android is botnet, it's never Google being nice or trying to make things better it's them suckering freetards into promoting their bid to control and botnet everything. Just like with chrome, Android, Gmail, YouTube, maps, web standards, etc.
They are thinking above your level.

I just wish we would finally get some decent en-/decoders for it.
github.com/AOMediaCodec/av1-avif/wiki
Btw does anyone know why go-avif is so RAM hungry?

Maybe you should seek help, user.

So why make it open sores? The SJW tranny browser and internet exploded edgy edition now support it because of that. Wouldn't that HURT chrome?

Attached: download.jpg (720x683, 190K)

AVIF will be beta for a few years I'm afraid. It took Webp like 5 years to stomp out all the RAM leaking problems inside and out.

Have sex

>the HTML of a youtube page (just the document, without any linked resources) is more than 3.5MB in size
>cares about kB images
Nope, I'm not going to let Google gate-keep images too. WebP was never alive.

Neat.
What is Jow Forums so archaic bros?

>I didn't make it but it does as intended.
In the worst possible way. Not only is the way to define the quality retarded, you also discard any alpha information (even though libvpx would be able to handle it).
>Then notice the file size reduction.
I also notice the reduction in quality.

Also while it doesn't help much, you can optimize said JPEG further without introducing additional losses.
files.catbox.moe/jv8izh.jpg (since I get a duplicate file error)
1,642,602 Bytes opposed to the original 1,868,973 Bytes.

Beats me, VP8 seems to do exceedingly well with vectorized images the most (ie anime) so it would specifically save the most bandwidth for Jow Forums.

Right but the quality is similar which is good enough in most cases. If autism you can tune the quality further and slap in some 1337 ffmpeg filter but I'm sure as hell not gonna spend my precious time doing that.

>what's flif?

Exactly.

>Right but the quality is similar
It really isn't. Do a side-by-side comparison.
>If autism you can tune the quality further and slap in some 1337 ffmpeg filter
You can only increase the quality further by increasing the file size. And it's a blessing that people stopped posting the denoise filter. It only hurts the quality more.

The actually dead format with pretty much zero support and no mature en/decoders.

pik is more popular than flif

The fact that blind google shills unironically believe these 2 images look the same makes me sad. And also really worried about the future of images on the internet.

Maybe I have a shitty display but in most cases when transcoding a Q 80/90 JPG to Q min/max 22 RF static webm things look pretty similar at 100% zoom. Either way it does what webp is trying to do: replace jpg albeit in a frankenstein way.

see
and
That's NOT webp's full transcoding compression efficiency btw. It was based off of intra frame VP8's encoding but now outperforms it significantly.

Delet. It's garbage. Wastes battery playing a video over and over.

New modern compression format. What are we going to get? Better quality? Harder to tell the difference between it and lossless? Nah, senpai, we know what you really want -- more artifacts that look less natural and stick out more!

And that's a good thing! (Here's why)

Attached: sheeeitjpg.jpg (888x499, 98K)

see
Wish I could post near_lossless webp ARGB images with file sizes smaller than Q80 lossy Webp BUT I CAN'T because this website is stuck in the stone age.

Also if I save it and open it on my PC it shows it to me for half a second and then it goes away. Thanks for this far """superior""" format, faggot.

You could at least demo the quality in a png.

It's the downside of the hack. It can be mitigate by changing "t 1" to "t 2" but that creates a pulsing artifact I think. I'd honestly go as far as to buy a pass if Jow Forums would add webp support desu.

I'm phoneposting. I can only make the static webms through Termux with ffmpeg and the bash script. Can't make webps tho.

Just admit it's stinking liquid garbage.

Yeah it is but gookmoot won't allow webp so it's the next best thing to cutting your dick off from the frustration.

Because Jow Forums could also EASILY use this for the iToddlers/mactoddlers:

webpjs.appspot.com/

based hiroshimoot

>t. paid for a $1,000+ iPhone that can't do the bare minimum tasks a $20 wall art burner chinkdroid can.

I want to BTFO the iToddlers as much as anyone, but webp is hot steaming garbage.

Not him but why? AFAIK ebay, toms hardware, 9gag, and a couple of other popular websites are using it already. What's the practical downside?

Jpg
Just works, dumbass

Here you go. This is the product of
cwebp -z 9 -near_lossless 0
with the newest cwebp version (1.0.3). It's the lowest you can go with near-lossless optimization.
What's more interesting though is that lossless WebP is pretty much the same size as the optimized JPEG from and clearly smaller than the original JPEG. It would be interesting to see how well it would compress the lossless source. Unfortunately the JPEG is already the best version you can download from pixiv.

Lossless WebP (1,684,800 Bytes): files.catbox.moe/48ja5i.webp
Near-lossless WebP (1,074,198 Bytes): files.catbox.moe/768t3r.webp

>but that creates a pulsing artifact I think.
Because nobody fucking listens, when people tell you that -qmin 22 -qmax 22 is not how you use libvpx.
archive.rebeccablacktech.com/g/thread/68430296/#68434083

Attached: near.png (1064x1500, 1.54M)

Don't do this, every website you visit will now know and be able to track your browser since it does not accept webp when it should.

That makes no sense, evoking the same Qmin/max also forces constant quality. Why would -crf X -v:b 0 be any different?

>I didn't make it but it does as intended. For example compare the quality of JPG related with the static webm I'll link to. Then notice the file size reduction.
Not them, but I did. I also noticed that the colors of the WebP picture are washed out, while the JPG's are not.

What about this one? I only changed q min/max to 10 btw.

Attached: Hatsune.Miku.full.428483.webm (1064x1500, 294K)

impressive

I figured it out. It's the chroma sub sampling used by webp, that's where all these weird artifacts come from.

Attached: chroma-subsampling-test-4k-tv.png (730x773, 20K)

holy shit

Attached: chroma-subsampling-test-4k-tv.webm (730x773, 150K)

>evoking the same Qmin/max also forces constant quality
No, the different bitrate modes change how libvpx handles things under the hood. Just using -qmin/-qmax will make libvpx default to VBR. Combine that with libvpx's inability to ensure a proper bitrate control for single pass encodes and you get your pulsing.
Mind you, I never worked on a codec before, but from what I can tell by looking at libvpx's source code, they do a lot more additional checks and quantizer range adjustments while using constrained/constant quality.

Also feel free to do the tests from the link yourself.

Not him but I will.

Attached: IMG_1899.png (1136x640, 1M)

and here is 2 sec static webm

did it work?

Attached: IMG_1899.webm (1136x640, 62K)

FUCK, forgot to save script

here is the real deal me thinks

>it doubled in size
welp

Attached: IMG_1899.webm (1136x640, 123K)

Jow Forums is responsible for popularizing webm on the internet
it wasn't until a little after Jow Forums supported it that all the normal image hosts started to

It's also why reddit adopted that shit tier gifv garbage because Jow Forums used webm

Near lossless comes out looking very good, but that isn't much of a surprise given the size - about a third smaller than lossless or png but nothing like the size savings we're used to from JPEG. Lossless webp is about the same size as lossless png, again not surprising. But as you move to lower qualities you get smaller sizes but more disgusting artifacts than JPEG.

Yeah but all the webms here use vp8, which is archaic

Just wait for JPEG XL, it'll replace all the major image formats.

I see. There is one thing that changed additionally to the absence of the denoising filter (something that I admittedly overlooked in my anger). -g 1 forces each frame to be a keyframe. Pretty useless for a single frame video (the first frame needs to be a keyframe after all), but it makes a big difference with multiple frames. There is absolutely no difference between the frames when using -g 1, so no pulsing at all.
Only when you omit -g 1 (and use inter compression for the 2nd frame) is the usage of an appropriate bitrate mode crucial.

>it doubled in size
Well, you do store two frames in it instead of one after all.

Why the hell do I need to know about keyframes to view a goddamn image

>soul

>soulless

You don't though.

So freetards (aka useful idiots) adopt it and go around irrationally shilling for it and against any competition. Notice how they shit on other formats.
>Wouldn't that hurt chrome.
It's about having control, if everyone uses it then Google adds botnet in a similar way like they did with chrome and android. If it doesn't get mass adoption they abandon it.
As far as those specific browsers, google plays dirty and intentionally makes their sites be slow or mess up on other browsers. IE/Edge is on the freetard permanent shill against list because they are cult crazyness. Firefox is either completely staffed and run by incompetent people or ... Do you think it's odd that everytime Firefox could gain users they do something to shed even more? ... since they are funded by google and many many many times have done sketchy stuff in coordination with google they are just controlled opposition. Google isn't scared of it's bitch.

>then Google adds botnet in a similar way like they did with chrome and android.
Do you know the difference between software and a standard?

I didn't even know -g 1 did that lmao. I'm an absolute skiddie.

Attached: dce.jpg (680x378, 27K)

Are the one making the 5G posts?

wtf is a keyframe? I thought ALL frames got encoded individually.

Yes. Why don't you?

When it comes to videos you have intra and inter compression. Frames that get compressed via intra compression can be decoded on their own (like images). Frames with inter compression depend on other frames (or rather how the content changes between those frames). This is what makes video coding formats so much more efficient than image sequences, because they don't store the full information for each frame.
Keyframes are intra frames + some additional restrictions to ensure that a decoder can use them as entry points for decoding.

>Yes.
Oh, I doubt that. Otherwise you wouldn't be constantly crying botnet. Do you also avoid VP8 and VP9 because of it? Are you concerned about Google potentially introducing botnet to AV1?

I really am glad I was into anime when fansubbing was "serious business" and I learned all that shit about video encoding. Such an interesting topic I don't think I ever would have even tried to learn about otherwise.

>VP8
Christ when will VP9 be allowed?

Attached: 22 second clip - 1920x1080 - Comparison VP8-VP9.png (1920x3248, 3.98M)

lol THE DAY Jow Forums PASSES GO ON SALE NIGGA

This isn't Jow Forums though.

Attached: 2018 November 23 - Everyone is still a newfag.jpg (1683x1690, 281K)

I don't understand why the developers won't add support for webp/vp9 webms
doesn't hiro want to save money?

Jow Forums doesn't have devs anymore

But sometimes the developer posts with his capcode on /qa/

Last time, the excuse was, "compatibility," for some things. Mostly phones I guess.

As if they care any android runs VP9 and iOS trash can't even handle webm to begin with

reminder to use pngquant for text png

ECT for lossless optimization
Pingo for high quality lossy optimization
pngquant for extreme lossy optimization or if you prefer dithering

take a screenshot of this thread
do pngquant on it
tell me it's lossy