.webp format is such a meme, what's the point on pushing this shit? All it does is create an inconvenience in image use as you basically have to rename every other file to .jpg/.png because a bunch of image editors and websites still don't support .webp format.
Also
>Google webp to find an image to use for thread.
>End up on google's shill page for webp.
>The logo image is saved as a png.
Talk about not believing your own bullshit.
but PNG is a lossless format
Yes but webp is... uhh... superior lossless. It's more lossless than lossless, it's losslesslessless.
your reply to my reply is bait
but your reply was bait for my reply. Are you saying my reply is bait bait?
didnt I first hear about this years ago why is this not a thing yet Jow Forums?
What webp format? Google is pushing it hard. Most images from google searches are forced into .webp format, sites like chrome now automatically save/load everything as .webp, etc...
i fucking loathe that some sites (particularly wikia) randomly turn .pngs into .webp files, even though the original file itself is still a .png
Because nobody needed, wanted, or asked for it.
So this is like webm for images?
MONEY, that's why. Hosting a website is not free and the less money it takes to host one the better. Lossless Webp is 20-40% smaller than a non-lossy standard level 9 compressed PNG and now more than 50% smaller than a lossy JPG for the same visual quality.
There's actually a script for static webms that are pretty close to actual webp lossy files.
I'll post Webp example, AGAIN.
I'm not sure if Wikia's Webp files are any smaller than the .pngs it serves
>smaller file size than JPG, PNG, AND GIF
>supports transparency on both lossless AND lossy encoding
>like 90% browser support by now
>has a built-in PNG crusher (near_lossless)
>you pay exactly $0.00 to use it even commercially
>is open source and freely available for anyone to inspect
Most importantly it has 2 huge impacts for the one hosting the website and users viewing the website:
1.) Hosting costs go down and less bandwidth is needed to server users images. Imagine going from 1Gbps to just a couple of hundred Mbps.
2.) Content loads faster for users even those with 1Gbps internet connections as servers usually have to throttle the bandwidth of serving content to individual users to 1-8Mbps.
So yeah, boo-fucking-hoo you're too much of a dipshit to open them in third party image viewers like nomacs that ALSO let you save them into PNG/JPGs in the same programs or use GIMP to edit and save them.
First a truly lossless example: pic related is a level 9 PNG: 3.44 MB
The following is a Webp with the parameter "-lossless -z 9": 2.21 MB
Which one do you think a website you rather host?
And now a PNG crusher example, the following was saved with the parameters "-near_lossless 0 -z 9": 1.65 MB
It is basically a webm keyframe.
Now finally a lossy example: pic related is Q90 JPG: 938 KB
The following is a Webp with the parameters "-preset drawing -sharp_yuv -m 6 -sns 70 -f 50 -size 450000 -pass 10": 439 KB
>MONEY, that's why.
But... I didn't ask why...
>>smaller file size than JPG, PNG
I call bullshit, considering all the interactions I've had with it so far, it was either the same size or larger as the same files in corresponding extensions. And no, I don't mean just re-saving the jpg/png as webp or vice-versa.
Any lower quality on the JPG side and Webp completely devastates it by having better visual quality AND less than half the file size. pic related is Q50 JPG: 409 KB
The following is a Webp with the parameters "-preset drawing -sharp_yuv -m 6 -sns 70 -f 50 -size 200000 -pass 10": 193 KB
Webp has gone several generational optimizations and efficiency gains over the last few years but the first few websites that decided to adopt it still have old files rendered by 0.5 or older encoders, those are usually only 20-30% smaller than their JPG/PNG counterparts.
Now that Webp has matured enough more websites will adopt it and the latest encoder will assure the 50+% efficiency gains over JPG and 20-40% over lossless PNG.
Sounds gay to be h with u sempoi.
Want to open webp? Use applications that support it (or install imlib2-webp). Want to get PNG? Use dwebp. Want to not be served webp via content negotiation? Remove it from your accept header if website is sane, use an older user-agent if not.
Trying to push a new standard is always difficult (especially for images) and WebP wasn't a real competition for a few years.
It's true, but as with all compression formats you have to consider the particular scenario.
Lossy WebP provides a higher quality for the same file size than JPEG, BUT this is only universally true for high quality factors. For low quality factors it becomes a matter of preference, as WebP tends to smooth the image too much.
Lossless WebP provides a higher compression ratio than PNG, BUT it is most noticeable for high resolution images and footage that isn't suited for PNG compression (e.g. photos). Sometimes I save less than 10% by going from optimized PNG to lossless WebP. In other instances I save up to 50%.
Post full-quality source? My 68185404_p0.png (sha1 8e05f4a21fe39cd9cf3fbed0854f8b5de30d7da1) has significantly different colors.
is webp broken for iToddlers just like webm?
For you: faster loading times. What said is true, even with a fast internet connection websites can't serve you content at unlimited bandwidth.
Can't, forgot exact page. But it's a 11MB zerochan image I scaled to 50% to post here.
Sadly I can't find a version with your resolution and colors either. I only have the one I mentioned above (1.03M, 800x1300) and a larger one (10.95M, 4000x6500). Wanted to compare some other formats (e.g. mozjpeg-encoded/optimized JPEG, lossy FLIF, PIK).
>Install ad blocker
>Install script blocker
>Now I need to install a webp blocker
Webshits really need to get some sense spanked into them. If they're so concerned about shaving a few pennies off bandwidth costs, they should consider targeting the 3MB of Javascript required to give their site a stupid loading screen instead of using a special snowflake image format.
Webshits talking about practicality. What a joke.
>site now takes twice as long to load
see
Now imagine all that savings passed onto YOU.
>There's actually a script for static webms that are pretty close to actual webp lossy files.
Yup, I got it. You're welcome folks, just save it as a BAT in windows and double click it on a folder of image/images you want turned into webp images you want to post on Jow Forums. Only limitations are max res allowed is 2048x2048 but that's a 4chink limitation.
for %%f IN (*.png, *.jpg) do (
ffmpeg -loop 1 -i "%%f" -pass 1 -y -g 1 -c:v libvpx -auto-alt-ref 0 -b:v 1M -deadline best -cpu-used 0 -an -t 1 -r 1 -f webm nul
ffmpeg -loop 1 -i "%%f" -pass 2 -y -g 1 -c:v libvpx -auto-alt-ref 0 -b:v 1M -deadline best -cpu-used 0 -an -t 1 -r 1 -f webm output.webm
)
>Now imagine all that savings passed onto YOU.
If he did imagine it, it would only exist in his imagination.
>Site behind 7 layers of javashit.
>Random video set to play the second page is opened.
>Popups and ads all over the place.
(lets pretend I don't adblock/scriptblock)
>B-b-but s-savings b-because o-one i-image is 1.4mb i-instead of 1.47mb.
There's no savings for the average user because any savings made on image filesize is instantly lost on all the other superfluous bullshit. Web 3.0 is the worst shit to happen to the internet since Web 2.0
nah you're tarded, see 9gag of which I am a fine conosoir of
>nah
I didn't ask a question.
I wasn't answering one either you triple boomer. Don't you have some atari games from WW2 to be going through?
>I wasn't answering one
Sure you were, if you were too much of a gimpy's mom to figure out what you yourself are saying then maybe you should try and not be gimpy's mom.
>webp
Yikes. FLIF or bust.
>FLIF
It's dead, user. The new hotness is JPEG XL.
keep up the good fight brother
fuck these geeks and their jewgle sponsored image format
Just another who? format as well unfortunately.
This lets advocate a proprietary royalty cancer ridden mpeg format or meme DOA fluf/flif/fluif/fluffy instead!
It's pronounced web-pee
Yes, it's somewhat concerning how quickly devs move on to the next new and better image format. Hopefully JPEG XL will have enough backing to finally break this cycle of formats with good ideas, but immature implementations. Guess only time will tell.
>Existing JPEG files can be losslessly transcoded to JPEG XL, while significantly reducing their size.
this sounds quite nice for converting old stuff where lossless originals are not available anymore
Oh, it is nice (albeit not new; see packJPG and Lepton). Most of these new image formats come with a lot of nice ideas. But in the end it comes down to the implementation. The best standard will fail without a good implementation.
FLIF for example comes with a lot of neat features, but once you start using it more extensively, you quickly become disheartened by the lacking en-/decoder (and not just because of the slow de-/compression speed).
Judging by how much webp has already proliferated (ebay and a growing list of other websites) is there any incentive to use jpeg xl especially with an uncertainty of how high the royalty fee will be?
>is there any incentive to use jpeg xl
Well, better compression, backwards-compatibility with JPEG, additional supported colorspaces, higher supported bit depths, etc.
ai.google
>especially with an uncertainty of how high the royalty fee will be?
It's supposedly royalty-free.
jpeg.org
>The JPEG XL reference software, ready for mobile and desktop deployments, will be available in Q4 2019. The current contributors have committed to releasing it publicly under a royalty-free and open source license.
so the problem with google pushing webp is that, they are not pushing it hard enough?
because it webpenis
How much better than Webp? See I really doubt this can outperform Webp AND remain royalty free. The amount of proprietary IP going into this makes it very likely someone will want money for their algos.
JPEG XL is based on both FLIF and Pik, so it should at least produce comparable results. Of course for concrete numbers we have to wait for JPEG XL to be released.
>I really doubt this can outperform Webp AND remain royalty free.
Why not? AV1 showed us that it's possible.
>archive images as flifs.
>update flif
>you're library of flifs are not supported.
Nice vendor lock-in.
You don't have to worry about that anymore.
Reminder
>webp
>not heif
ROFL
Friendly reminder that FLIF's strongest protection against generation loss is to corrupt images during lossy FLIF transcoding.
>.webp format is such a meme, what's the point on pushing this shit?
Webp the best lossless format hands-down, MUCH better compression than PNG, MUCH faster compression/decompression than PNG.
If we replace PNG with Webp, the gains will be enourmous.
>MUCH faster compression/decompression than PNG
This isn't true. WebP at its fastest comes pretty close to PNG though (normal PNG compression; not PNG optimizers).
heif is just a container, heic is the image codec used at the moment (but any image codec could be used with heif), but it's not going anywhere since it's royalty encumbered due to HEVC patents.
Jpeg XL will be the new lossy image standard across the web, it is much better than jpeg, can do lossless re-compression of old jpeg files and save ~20%, and it's royalty free.
What version of webp was this using? Seems pretty outdated.
see
I don't care about a site taking four seconds to load instead of two. That makes no difference in my life whatsoever. Having a monkey wrench thrown into sharing images does. That's why I don't care that I can easily configure my own phone and PC to work with them. It effects interoperability with my family and friends who are even less willing to jump through those hoops than I am. It's the same reason I hate the current state of file sharing even though perfect solutions like scp exist.
Bullshit, at comparable file size, Webp compresses and decompresses a LOT faster than PNG.
When you use the fastest compression/decompression on both Webp and PNG, Webp compresses and decompresses faster
When you use the highest compression/decompression on both Webp and PNG, Webp compresses and decompresses faster, and also compresses a LOT better.
The only reason to use PNG is for compability, Webp blows it out of the water in all other aspects.
After some tests I see that you are right. They really upped cwebp's performance.
The video was published on Apr 5, 2016. The newest libwebp version back then was 0.5.0 (0.5.1 was released three months after the video).
Not just that, check out their near_lossless param with Z values of 6-9. They're even trashing non dithering lossy PNG compression.
It's so good it actually outperforms its own lossy encoder sometimes with file size/quality especially since no chroma sub-sampling artifacts.
webm quality is a joke
Oh, I know how efficient WebP compresses (in all its variations). It's just been a while since I last checked the compression speed. Usually I batch compress hundreds of images and don't bother to check how long it took exactly.
>It's so good it actually outperforms its own lossy encoder sometimes with file size/quality especially since no chroma sub-sampling artifacts.
Yeah, that's what you get for combining two completely unrelated compression algorithms in one format. I encountered more than enough images, where lossless WebP (no lossy pre-processing) beat high quality lossy WebP (q >= 90) easily.
Look at the file size you MORON. Then look at
Also of course this hack isn't going to be as efficient as the latest webp encoder but it gets somewhat close.
Webm is a container format.
He's not entirely wrong though. Back when WebP came to be VP8 was the best choice as foundation, but as far as video coding formats go it's a lacking standard with a shit implementation.
For example here a quick comparison between AVC (libx264) and VP8 (libvpx). Both with the PNG in as input and the slowest speed settings. The resulting files are about the same size as (at first I didn't realize this WebM was downscaled).
>VP8: 124.392 Bytes
>AVC: 121.925 Bytes
First the VP8 version.
And now AVC.
WebP is a container format
How to disable webpiss support on Firefox:
>go to about:config
>search for: image.webp.enabled
>set value to false
>search for: image.http.accept.
>change its value from image/webp,*/\* to just */\*
Is there a manga downloader that blocks webp? My ereader doesn't support webp and converting pages of manga into a different format sounds easy in theory but in practice there's a lot of shit that goes wrong depending on filenames and directory structures and stuff. I could write a script but webp is a solution in search of a problem and I want to put in the minimal effort required to accommodate it.
It doesn't allow you to block them, but FMD has an option to automatically save WebP as PNG or JPEG.
Thanks. Blocking was the wrong term to use, I just want the files on my computer to end up as PNGs or JPEGs. This seems like a great program.
Previously I was using something called HakuNeku and the only solution was downloading as PDF which I don't like.
No problem. Be sure to use fmd-project-team's fork though, as riderkick's is pretty much dead.
We already had this same thread some days ago
Stop being a cock sucking faggot
I guarantee you if moot adopted it with webm, webp would be way more common across the internet by now. Jow Forums is unironically a trendsetter. But he didn't and people are too lazy/stubborn to use the format.
OF COURSE it's gonna be a tranny SJW user to go against something as revolutionary like this after everyone abandoned their dogshit frankenstein JPG hack.
It's sad that a tranny SJW user has to be the one that steps in with some sensibility.
the future
WOAH
So OPM is still a thing?
This should be a felony.
oh i fucked the page sequence.
What's the point of this?
get (you)'s on webp threads
What quality should I use for lossy webp? My tablet supports it.
I guess. Did anybody care about S2?
I just don't care about anime anymore.
Compare -near_lossless 0 -z 9 with -q 90 -m 6. The first one will save in ARGB so you went get the weird chroma sub-sampling artifacts or too much destruction of fine detail. If this method achieves an acceptable file-size ratio over the lossless source, use that. Else stick with -q 90 -m 6.
If you are using Linux
You can use dwebp with a loop to convert every webp in a folder
if anything .webm is popular because youtube uses it.