Untitled

.

Attached: webp.png (34x18, 531)

NOOOOOOOOOOO

Attached: 1507271426315.png (601x601, 401K)

>sees .webp video format
>immediately kills self

I'm ready to dump my lossless webp hi-res scans of playboy centerfolds whenever Jow Forums is ready.

The lossless version (which is completely different codec developed by ex-Xvid guy) is the only good part I think.
Why the fuck, when they already have to use the shitty Google me-too video formats as a base, why did they have to pick the shittier one from them, VP8, when VP9 was already close?

People rant about HEIF having tiling and such stuff, but I hope it prevails over "le internet is me" Google ideas like this.

Attached: Kot is done with this shit.png (295x558, 77K)

I don't think VP9 development had even started, when the first WebP version was released.

Hmm, it is older than I thought. Retards should update it tho. Funny that they cared about binary compatibility despite it not being in use then, while they happily keep churning out new video codecs.

>install imgur extension
>fix any webpiece of shit image with a simple transload

Fucking Google and their retard shitformat can go fuck themselves

Attached: aXxxGLD_700b.jpg (600x505, 55K)

Reminder

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

I was about to say something like this. I've only ever seen .webp when trying to save from mobile. I considered it a bullying format for using mobile and if I found any when backing up to my desktop I considered it a mistake. Didn't know until recently that it's apparently better, but just not supported yet.

For the time being I still wouldn't save any, though. It burns me for no perceivable benefit for my uses.

Well, they are pushing it for almost nine years and it's only slowly coming through now. Making a new successor based on VP9 would throw them back to square one.
Actually it's a rather concerning trend with new image formats that they get ditched for the next new format, before being able to mature. We'll never get a good replacement for JPEG/PNG like that.

Doesn't it get stale after almost half a year?

Why are you inbreeding you fucking inbred?

>Making a new successor based on VP9 would throw them back to square one.
Not if they did it in 2013, which was six years ago and nobody was using it then so it was an ideal opportunity to swap a better compression inside early one. From then on, it could have been frozen, but being anal about supposed compatibility back then was misguided.

I'm making a Jow Forums clone where all thumbnails will be webp, and I'm debating if I should just convert all submitted jpg, jpeg, and gif files to webp.

Can somebody tell me why it's bad?

Harms quality, blurs out detail. Gifs will probably suffer a lot thanks to their palette/RGB nature.

But isn't user experience a fair trade off? You get faster loads

But images are fucked if you want to save them

Attached: D-Xif4XVUAEf7DF.jpg (4096x2304, 967K)

>search for something on Google images
>download image
>it is .webp
>open it and get this error
>rename and everything is fine

Attached: Untitled.png (427x184, 7K)

Oh damn... So webp for thumbnails and regular images for regular images? What if I just bit the bullet on the server side and made a webp version for every image, served webp versions of the thumbnails and the image, and added a download button so they can download the originals... I think that would be the best way to handle this.

noobs would miss that and download and perpetuate the shit version, plus it would be a pita to always click another button to grab a file after you already displayed it.

Maybe you're right... What if it was a global option you can toggle on and off? That way you can choose if you'd rather have fast images or the real deal. It might be the only way.

The default option would be the real deal, and those who are smart enough to know webp is faster to load will use the webp option, and use the download button whenever they need to download.