[ home / bans / all ] [ qa / jp / cry ] [ sum ] [ f / ec ] [ b / poll ] [ tv / bann ] [ toggle-new / tab ]

/qa/ - Questions and Answers

Questions and Answers about QA

New Reply

Options
Comment
File
Whitelist Token
Spoiler
Password (For file deletion.)
Markup tags exist for bold, itallics, header, spoiler etc. as listed in " [options] > View Formatting "


[Return] [Bottom] [Catalog]

File:1445920748493.jpg (62.42 KB,1228x913)

 No.94764

What the fuck is this webp garbage? Everytime I save an image now I get this garbage format and I can't post it on imageboards because its not supported. Where the fuck did this shit even come from?

 No.94765

File:1660454034860.webp (17.2 KB,255x190)

huh?

 No.94766

File:Shrug_spin_Yume.gif (914.79 KB,320x180)

>>94764
>I can't post it on imageboards because its not supported
Stop using outdated imageboards.

 No.94767

File:[Commie] Call of the Night….jpg (318.42 KB,1920x1080)

It came from google so any resistance isn't going to get anywhere. All you can do is try and adapt to it... somewhat

 No.94768

>>94767
>It came from google
Good, then it'll suddenly disappear for no reason in a few years.

 No.94769

>>94764
It's an image format that was born when Google bought a company that had a nice video format, and noticed that it could use that for images as well. It supports both lossy and lossless compression, while having better quality and smaller size than JPEG on comparable quality settings. It also supports features of PNG, like transparency.
As of date all major browsers support it. The reason you cannot post this ``garbage format'' on imageboards is not the fault of WebP. It's the fault of technologically illiterate imageboard admins who are using ancient garbage built on top of PHP in 2010 (or worse), and don't know how to add support for it.

By the way, there are also newer formats for web environments, like JPEG XL or AVIF, that supposedly have better compression than WebP, but the support for it is still iffy. You should make a mental note to throw a tantrum about these as well, about 5 years from now.

 No.94772

>>94769
Why should we even care about smaller file-sizes for general purpose image sharing these days, when bandwidth and hard drive sizes are so large that no one is realistically going to run into issues from large image sizes?

 No.94773

>>94772
Think of it like this: the only reason you have higher capacity storage solutions and higher bandwidth than a decade or two ago, is that the people involved actually invested resources in the better alternatives.
The sheer stupidity of your post reminded me of why I come to imageboards very rarely these days.

 No.94774

>>94766
I am delighted that Kissu is walking on the bleeding edge of posting innovation

 No.94776

>>94769
The biggest thing is that software doesn't support it. Imageboards are social places and ideally there are people making edits and stuff. Stuff like gimp and photoshop can't open them, which is probably working as intended I imagine.

 No.94777

>>94766
Cute.

>>94767
Wide.

 No.94781

File:C-1660471213400.png (432.76 KB,1920x1017)

>>94776
>Stuff like gimp and photoshop can't open them
Information old enough to start going to school. I really don't understand why people keep spouting hot takes from decade ago.

 No.94784

Solutions:
A) Remove accept webp from request header (about:config). This is bad for privacy and since YouTube is owned by Google they provide no jpeg alternative so all thumbnails break on their site.
Most sites will provide jpegs instead.
B) Extension to right click download and convert images to a better file format. This is kind of bad in some cases, like lossy webp to lossy jpg, will probably alter image slightly. Lossless webp to lossless png should be fine though. This is the easier solution.

>>94772
Why be wasteful?
Also a lot of lurkers will be on limited bandwidth for various reasons whether that's terrible wifi or phonelurking or whatever.
It's the right thing to do for the admins of imageboards as well as bandwidth can still be a massive cost in many cases.

 No.94786

>>94769
>The reason you cannot post this ``garbage format'' on imageboards is not the fault of WebP. It's the fault of technologically illiterate imageboard admins who are using ancient garbage built on top of PHP in 2010 (or worse), and don't know how to add support for it.
You're being awfully self-righteous about perfectly good code that works just fine for its intended purpose.

 No.94787

>>94786
it's so old that it doesn't really do what it was intended, it just scratches the surface

 No.94789

File:1463455852027.webp (867.5 KB,480x470)

>>94784
if you want to save on bandwidth, set the max file size to something like 100 kb. webp doesn't solve bandwidth problems, lossless webp files are still large.

The main problem with webp is that it's just not that much better than existing file types so there hasn't been much push for adoption. Also I'm not sure that packaging lossless and lossy files under the same extension and also allowing animations was really the best choice. Might've done better if they split them into 3 different ones so people know what they're getting without having to look at the file details.

 No.94790

File:T⌒T.gif (158.63 KB,462x600)

>>94789
Not arguing that webp is a solution to filesizes on its own. I'm not a fan of the format purely because google and unsupported by older software forcing me to convert them to other formats, but beyond that it has some advantages.
I just think the idea that we don't need to save bandwidth is not a great one. For example when posting a 2mb png screenshot of a very lossy stream video that may as well have been a 200kb jpeg. Grr. Very annoying when internet runs out and I have to use limited phone data. Can only imagine how bad it is for people who have limited data or slow internet always. A lot of rural places still have bad internet. City dwellers won't understand the suffering...

 No.94793

>>94781
I use GIMP to convert WebP's to PNGs because WebP is still barely supported by most websites. Unless and until WebP gets the same adoption to the point where it's among the canon of GIF, JPG, and PNG, it's just going to remain a dead in the water format that people dislike because of being unable to use it where they want to. What good is having an image you can't post?

 No.94794

>>94793
To add this: you get people to use a format by providing better features that make people want to use it. No one has any reason to want to use WebP, which is why people hate it.

 No.94795

>>94794
I don't hate it, not sure why anyone would spend time hating a file format.

 No.94796

it literally does reduce filesizes and the only things lacking it are old apple devices and inferior imageboards.

 No.94805

>>94796
>it literally does reduce filesizes and the only things lacking it are old apple devices and inferior imageboards.
And actual photo viewing programs on actual computers like the default one on Windows 10.
When you unilaterally bring out something as fundamental as a new image format, you end up creating a lot of work for other people to do.

 No.94807

>>94805
it's a thumbnail format

 No.94809

>>94807
I wish.

 No.94810

>>94809
every technology has it's use and the people using it for larger images have decided they don't need people saving them. Simple enough

 No.94812

>>94810
>the people using it for larger images have decided they don't need people saving them
Which is entirely what the problem is.

 No.94813

>>94812
Is it illegal to want to get better page loads for users at the cost of a few freedumb users?

 No.94814

>>94813
You mean freesmart users.

 No.94816

>>94814
yeah, in the end of the day this entire conversation is about defending your ideology rather than benefiting the end user. At least windows and google are actually trying to please the most general user instead of seeking out ones that should be able to account for the issues of emergent technology

 No.94821

>>94816
well, I am the end user and I'm not being benefited by webp.

 No.94823

>>94821
the sites you use are able to hold more stuff because of it

 No.94826

I like it's plosive pronunciation, there aren't many words with a p after a b.

 No.94828

>>94823
They should have invented it back in the dialup days then.

 No.94830

>>94816
>this entire conversation is about defending your ideology
No, the entire conversation was about user convenience, the tangent about free software was just something you added after the fact.

 No.94834

>>94830
the response to the query was telling enough that there's no actual desire to help people here rather than go against things that don't conform to your ideological beliefs.

 No.94835

>>94834
You told yourself that.

 No.94836

File:[SubsPlease] Utawarerumono….jpg (105.72 KB,1280x720)

>>94781
Oh, gimp can open them? Well, my "hot take" is from not using it recently. I'm quite surprised that it supports it and it didn't seem to associate itself with the filetype automatically from my current installation of it. Huh.

 No.94840

>>94836
How old's your GIMP?

 No.94841

>>94840
About a year or so I think. This Windows installation is 2-3 years so it's more recent than that at the least. I never tried to manually open a WEBP with it, but I figured that it would have associated itself with it in windows if it could do that

 No.94852

>>94834
Yeah, my ideological beliefs are that if people aren't naturally using the format themselves, then forcing it upon them isn't going to make anyone like or want to use it any more. Moreover the mediocre support for it through more conventional websites as a supported filetype is telling enough. If people were using it, it would be supported. Instead, it's unilaterally imposed on users by web developers who care that their WebP's are 2 kb smaller than a jpg.

 No.94855

>>94852
You don't even know what you're talking about. This is why no imageboard should ever have a /g/ section.

 No.94869

webpiss is shit because its a google made thing to replace something that doesn't need to be replaced.

 No.94876

File:Screenshot 2022-08-14 2124….png (10.47 KB,499x73)

>>94855
ur gay

 No.94879

>>94869
>>94876
again. you don't understand how the technology works or why it exists, so stay out of matters relating to computer science

 No.94882

>>94879
Uh, stop derailing the thread retard. This is the webp is shit thread. Go make your own webp is great thread and see how many replies you get.

 No.94883

File:86361288_p0.jpg (1.4 MB,2067x1447)

Ultimately the technology and bits and bytes don't matter. People are what give something value, like VHS winning over Betamax because it's what porn companies used.
I'm sure it will become useful on places like Twitter or Facebook where images are already lossly compressed by the website itself and no one cares, but imageboards are different.
Imageboards, or at least kissu, is heavily centered on sharing and to a lesser degree editing, so webp is a format that can function great for thumbnails, but for actual images that people want to contribute to the place then it's restrictive.
Imagine if Koruri here was a WEBP, would she get all the stupid edits? Well, I certainly wouldn't bother re-learning gimp just to do that.

 No.94884

>>94882
Stay out of computer science related topics.

 No.94885

PNG is the only image format that should exist.

 No.94886

>>94885
png is excessive for photo media. Stay out of computer science related topics.

 No.94887

>>94886
No such thing as being excessive. It's always better to be excessive than the alternatives.

 No.94888

>>94764
Install GraphicsMagick, then do "gm convert loli.webp loli.jpeg"

 No.94889

>>94888
He doesn't even need to learn the most basic things about computers(which he obviously doesn't have the mental capacity for) so just give him something like https://www.nchsoftware.com/imageconverter/index.html and all of a sudden web graphic formats are no longer a problem

 No.94890

Kuso thread.

 No.94891

>>94882
You're right. This thread is SHIT and RETARDED and GAY

 No.94897

File:1498934154841.gif (391.35 KB,500x273)

On the contrary, in terms of epic opinions on webp, it owns(owned?) apple users so it's hella radical

 No.94905

File:paruparu.webp (172.72 KB,472x472)

grrrrr webp bad google bad big company bad
meanwhile: pdf, xls, ppt, doc, gif, swf, zip, mp3, aac, rar...

just for you, i converted this paruparu.jpg into paruparu.webp. youmad?

 No.94906

>>94905
>swf
now there's the true evil to man

 No.94907

>>94890
Don't feel bad, OP. It's not your fault.

 No.94908

File:__ledo_vassar_pop_up_story….jpg (55.03 KB,810x932)

>>94907
I can't let this go the guilt is like the throbbing dragon dildo I hide from mommy under my floorboards each post ITT penetrating my soul leaving me gasping for breath each and every (you) tearing up my insides as I try to move away but I'm just thrust back in over and over! Every next reply feeling large some written larger! it slips into me...my eyes roll back and I awake back in this thread...I might just be a gluten for punishment, please give me release.

 No.94909

Sugoi thread!

 No.94910

autosaged thread.

The OP was being excessively rude and inflammatory to begin with, accelerated by some very not smart people pretending they know anything about web technology.

 No.94911

>>94910
>some very not smart people pretending they know anything about web technology
like you are one to talk

 No.94912

>>94911
What are you aiming to do by posting this comment?
Are you by any chance angry at me? Why don't you just explain why you decided you wanted to attack me at this position.

 No.94913

>>94908
>I might just be a gluten for punishment
You must be the guy who ate a whole pizza.

 No.94915

>>94912
I SAW THE EDIT

 No.94916

>>94915
You are literally only around because my mods were too pussy to ban you off of the site

 No.94917

>>94916
What's the history there?

 No.94918

I mean. If your mods didn't ban me then I have no way of knowing about it.

 No.94919

>>94918
That's the point of the system. So that the three people who I want to never see again who have all congealed in this thread have a fair chance before you make the inevitable mental slip up which I know you all will make again.

 No.94920

>>94919
Who are the other two?

 No.94921

>>94920
I don't like you the most. Go back to the board I know you came from

 No.94922

>>94921
What did I do?

 No.94923

Also: What board?

 No.94924

File:[SubsPlease] Utawarerumono….jpg (133.17 KB,1280x720)

Talk about the thread subject. It's not difficult.
Anonymous imageboard. Ideas over people. Learn it. Love it. Live it.
Thanks.

 No.94925

>>94924
I'm preparing a post right now on the thread subject.

 No.94926

HUGE fight

 No.94927

>>94926
I didn't do anything.

 No.94936

File:lossy image format filesiz….png (6.59 MB,1800x3600)

I'm coming around to webp as an image format.
On this test image of Kurumi Erika, not the most suited to the "photograph" use case of lossy compression in the first place, I think webp does a lot better than jpg. Its filesizes are an improvement across the board. Note that the worst lossy webp filesize is still only about one third of the original lossless filesize. (A lossless webp also improves on filesize, achieving 415.3 kB compared to the png's 460.5 kB.)
In my opinion, webp's visual quality degrades more gracefully as the quality parameter decreases than jpg. However, very low quality settings are not often seen in practice. At quality levels around 80 to 90 (representative of typical decent-quality jpgs on the internet), jpg compression artifacts become noticeable at a glance at 100% zoom on the test image. The same quality level on webp looks the same or better.
Two flaws of lossy webp are:
¥Blocky on gradients, similar to jpg (check the bulk of Erika's hair on the top of her head).
¥Even on the highest compression level, there are still substantial 'ringing' artifacts around sharp edges.

 No.94937

File:quality degradation differ….png (6.99 MB,1800x3200)

>>94936
A follow-up image showing the differences from the original image induced by lossy encoding. Observe that a jpg at the maximum quality of 100 produces negligible differences while a webp at the same maximum quality produces visible differences.

 No.94938

>>94879
I don't need to understand to tell you I don't want it, it doesn't need to exist, its the redheaded stepchild of image formats. No data or information is going to change that its unwanted to begin with.

 No.94939

>>94938
i wanted it (and i'm more important than you so my opinion trumps yours)

 No.94940

>>94936
>Blocky on gradients, similar to jpg (check the bulk of Erika's hair on the top of her head).
VP8 was basically H.264 with the credibly patented features removed. One of those features was H.264's in-loop deblocking filter. So VP8 ends up looking more blocky. AV1 fixed this issue by switching from DCTs of blocks to wavelets.

>Even on the highest compression level, there are still substantial 'ringing' artifacts around sharp edges.
WebP has a lossless mode, you should test that too to see what sort of filesizes you get. Also worth looking at AVIF (which should theoretically be less blocky) and JXL (which supposedly focuses more on the high-quality case).

 No.94942

File:Autism.mp4 (15.97 MB,1280x720)

ITT

 No.94945

File:output.webm (7.87 MB,498x498)


 No.94948

>>94945
not bad...

 No.94949

File:vtubers.webp (371.53 KB,2362x2150)

Here, have a WEBP of some VTUBERS.

 No.94950

File:autism theme song.mp4 (736.53 KB,576x324)


 No.95001

Wow I forgot I made this thread and its got a lot of replies.

 No.95009

>>95001
Dont read them




[Return] [Top] [Catalog] [Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]

[ home / bans / all ] [ qa / jp / cry ] [ sum ] [ f / ec ] [ b / poll ] [ tv / bann ] [ toggle-new / tab ]