If you use Firefox, paste 'about:config' into your address bar, and then make sure to set
image.webp.enabled
to false.
This will ensure that any website that serves webp files will instead correctly serve you jpeg or png image files instead.
Thank you for your time, and enjoy a free and integrious web browsing experience.
Other urls found in this thread:
files.catbox.moe
files.catbox.moe
files.catbox.moe
twitter.com
>that doesn't exist in this version of FF
Stop updating you loon.
>using a Firefox version past 52 ESR
Brainlet, 52 ESR does not have this problem.
you can't disable updates anymore. welcome to the software dystopia
Don't websites take twice as long to load without webp?
If anything webp takes longer to load since it's a relatively juvenile and unsupported format.
Not in my experience. Is it just that forefox is a broken trash heap like always? I've been considering moving to chromium for a while now desu.
Thanks bro. I'm tired of the webp, webm, webpy, webgo, webjar, webx...
>foreskinfox
>"lol bro relax, it's just images"
why tho
But why? What's wrong with webp?
oh, no reason really
freetards feel compromised by "le googly buttnet" despite webp being open sores and making google $0.
>"you can't disable updates anymore." - Turbo Normie.
I don't get the purpose of benchmarks like this. Why would someone re-encode an image thousands of times over?
nothing at all
Why would I do that? I don't visit sites that serve WebP and FF is the only software on my PC that can handle animated WebP (the gdk-pixbuf patch unfortunately only covers static images).
Not necessarily. If a website uses JPEGs/PNGs that can be progressively decoded, then you don't need to load the entire image before it can be displayed, making the size difference compared to WebP moot. It saves the website bandwidth costs though.
Forced chroma subsampling for lossy WebP, lossless WebP is a completely different compression algorithm, low quality lossy WebP smooths over details too much and no progressive decoding support, just to name a few problems.
Friendly reminder that this was done with an ancient libwebp version and that FLIF despite its advantages is dead.
>wintard
>and making google $0
that's where you're wrong bucko, they make money from market presence alone. in fact, google is so determined to replace jpeg with webp that they're PAYING websites to use their format. Of course, you're probably too simpleminded to care, but there are others who do.
I use BMP for all images on my server because everyone have at least 100 mbps internet at home now
>I don't visit sites that serve WebP
You absolutely do, you just don't notice it. Go ahead and search your hard drive, you're bound to have accidently saved a webp image or two.
MAGENTAAAA
AAAAAAAAA
>everyone have at least 100 mbps internet at home now
Wrong, _all_ the household in my shitty vilage have at least double that, and I'm on 1gbps.
>the BMP argument
Sorry I use only solid state drive
It's a real world scenario that JPG has had for the last 13 years
SSDs are hard, try taking a bite out of it
>>everyone have at least 100 mbps internet at home now
>Wrong, _all_ the household in my shitty vilage have at least double that
Do you understand English?
a lot of websites compress images that are uploaded and when people repeatedly save and upload and share images over and over again hundreds of times there's gonna be some quality loss. with webp, you won't even recognize the original image after a while
>everyone has at least 56kbps
Do you?
Okay, I see that you don't.
He took the bait
>buckled under his own premise
As I said, pathetic. No wonder you're @ Google.
God, FLIF is so based. I just wish it was implemented in Firefox.
based, thanks for the tip fellow 4channeler
>You absolutely do, you just don't notice it.
Fair enough, but I don't download images from those sites.
>Go ahead and search your hard drive, you're bound to have accidently saved a webp image or two.
I do know my files pretty well as I'm an autist and use lossless image optimizers on the pictures I save. I never download WebP. I do have several thousand WebPs on my PC though, as I converted my entire manga/doujin collection to lossless WebP.
FLIF is lossless, might as well use PNG.
Ooooooooh yeeees sir, why not.
It got a lot better in the meantime. There's still a problem with color bleeding though.
That doesn't stop it from being far more efficient, both in its normal and lossy optimized state. The bigger problem is that JPEG XL already killed FLIF.
thanks
>comparing uncompressed and compressed images using a performance benchmark
>not just using png
>frogposter
>retarded
Checks out.
You can't stop Firefox from updating on your shitty OS?
It's for your own good you troglodyte. Webp now exceeds the 50% compression efficiency target over standard JPG and up to ~20-40% over standard PNG. Not only that but the near lossless mode (ie no chroma sub sampling) also matches if not outperform lossy non-dithering PNG crushers out there.
If anyone has ever re-encoded a JPG image even once they are certifiably retarded.
Pic related is a shitty JPG
This is a Webp of fairly similar file size. Which one would YOU want to be served with?
>FLIF
Jesus fuck, how can a lossless format output smaller sizes than lossy formats? What is this sorcery and why isn't this format being implemented everywhere right now?
The same thing happens with Webp, this isn't new. You just exhaustively perform as much visually non-invasive pre-processing as possible but save to ARGB instead of a keyframe. FLIFs implementation of this was barely better than Webp's pre-processing algos and took like 10X longer.
8.32 MB PNG: files.catbox.moe
3.72 MB Webp: files.catbox.moe
Of course these aren't the same to a robot but the important question is can you tell them apart at 100% zoom? Now repeat this a couple thousand time for whatever autistic reason and you'll get minimal "wear" of the image. Of course no sane person would actually use this as lossy encodings would be 5-10X smaller in file sizw, retain 80-90% visual quality, and be significantly faster to encode/decode.
Like you said yourself, this isn't something unique. FLIF does the same thing, and there's no way I'm using a google format.
Doesn't matter, see
That's the REAL reason websites want to ditch JPG and replace it with Webp despite it not having progressive decoding yet AFAIK.
Nah, they only use webp because of obsessive marketing by dumb shills like .
If they actually cared about speed and size there are better options to choose from. But sadly web devs aren't getting bribed by google to implement support for FLIF and similar formats.
Checked but wrong. Sure there are better formats like FLIF/FLUIF/FLUF? but given how long it takes to encode an image just for 5-10% better compression and virtually 0 browser support makes them unfavorable. The only thing even close to Webp would be jpeg xl but all the good algos would mean it would incur a royalty fee just to use it, meanwhile webp does not.
>you can't disable updates anymore. welcome to the software dystopia
Wanna fucking bet?
chattr +i ...
Doesn't FLIF still have patent issues?
Who fucking cares about all this, when is AVIF going live?
that's exactly what happened with instagram memes
>it's going to happen, don't resist
>t.google+rape face
Don't worry about Google controlling every aspect of the web.
I hope webp gets adopted in Jow Forums but and Apple never supports it like with webm, so itoddlers get btfo again.
As if 90% of people with access to the internet aren't retarded
I did this, and most gifs and some jaypegs stopped displaying too for whatever reason
thank you user
fuck all the efficiency nerds
if webp is so good why doesn't 4channel support it?
nobody wants to download an image to view it, especially on an imageboard
>t. itoddler
>t. autist who wget's all his mongolian basketweaving content to avoid the scawwy glowwies
4channel is slow to adopt new stuff presuably to maintain compatability. I dont think you can even use h.265/HEVC in webms yet despite saving shittons of space.
All the major browsers support webp dumb itoddler
upload a webp RIGHT NOW
Jow Forums not supporting it is another issue altogether dumb itoddler
>bu-but wepb is da bess
>proceeds not to post one
get fucked
>ps here's a jpg to give to all (You)r friends
>I dont think you can even use h.265/HEVC in webms yet
retard
webm is a container, not a video codec
It can contain H.264/H.265 streams just like it can contain VP8/VP9 streams
read the spec
mkv can, webm can't
Maybe it was vp9 i was thinking of. there is some encoding that my video editor defaults to that Jow Forums doesn't support. I always have to manually specify vp8.
Jow Forums supports vp8, but not vp9 or av1
>last 13 years
Why? What happened 13 years ago that wasn't applicable to jpegs 14 years ago, or 15, or since 1992 when the format was first made available?
jpeg and png need to die, there are tons of better formats.
So pretty much everybody, who ever edited a JPEG beyond basic cropping and rotation (and even then most people don't know about lossless JPEG editing and compress it unnecessarily).
Also no website cares about quality, if they can save bandwidth instead. People complain about JPEGs being converted to lossy WebP, but sites were doing the same shit before, just with JPEG to JPEG.
FLIF may be inherently lossless, but the pictures in these comparisons were optimized by discarding data on the encoder site (aka lossy FLIF). The inconsistent file size is a byproduct of the constant recompression. Lossy FLIF (given a fixed quality range) converges towards a fixed size limit rather quickly, while inherently lossy formats become unpredictable after a while.
>why isn't this format being implemented everywhere right now?
Because it's slow to en- and decode, updates constantly broke backwards compatibility, it doesn't get updates anymore, transcoding is broken and the best encoding settings are unpredictable (i.e. the fastest effort setting might give you the worst or the best results or something in-between).
Pretty sure only Safari and IE11 are the only browsers that support HEVC playback.
>If they actually cared about speed and size there are better options to choose from.
And which one are those?
>but all the good algos would mean it would incur a royalty fee just to use it
Supposedly it's royalty-free.
You really think this site cares about efficient formats, when it only supports VP8 WebMs?
>I dont think you can even use h.265/HEVC in webms yet despite saving shittons of space.
VP9. You're thinking of VP9.
chromium is worse
firefox is better
Perhaps the rise of social media?
>Firefox
>free
Remember that time they kicked gab out of the addons repository?
Fuck this SJW PoS
>This will ensure that any website that serves webp files will instead correctly serve you jpeg or png image files instead.
This is wrong. Setting image.webp.enabled will just disable the webp decoder. Websites still serve you webp images but now Firefox can't decode them.
You have to remove image/webp from the image.http.accept string.
Is that Kiary Pamyu Pamyu?
>You have to remove image/webp from the image.http.accept string.
You're absolutely right, thanks.
There's a script for that IIRC. It used the webm video container to display 1 keyframe (what webo really is).
I'm actually impressed given how much VP8 lags behind H264 in terms of compression efficiency.