• Noxy@pawb.socialEnglish
    6·
    3 days ago

    fucking Telegram automatically converts any webp sent in a message to a fucking sticker

    I didn’t want that. I want the ability to view the image, including zooming in and panning, and telegram forcing it into a sticker kills that completely

  • Fiona@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    4·
    3 days ago

    webp is absofuckinglutely inferior to JPEG-XL and that one is where you actually have that problem. I’m literally providing an avif-fallback on my website, because otherwise pretty much no browser would support anything.

    (Speaking of it, avif is also superior to webp.)

  • Thorry84@feddit.nl
    5·
    4 days ago

    I recently put in a lot of hours for a software system to be able to handle webp just as well as every other image format it already accepted. I put in a lot of work as well. Hadn’t heard about it for a while, but saw the feature release statement for the new version I knew my changes were in. It wasn’t on there. So I reached out to my contact and asked if there was an issue or did it get bumped to a later version or what? So she told me the marketing team that do the release statements decided not to include it. They stated for one, people already expect common formats to be handled. Saying you now handle a format looks bad, since people know you didn’t handle it before and were behind the curve. The second (probably more important) reason was nobody knew what webp even was and it’s only something technical people care about (they probably said nerds, but my contact translated). So no regular customer would be interested and it could only lead to confusion and questions.

    I hope somebody is happy with the work I put in tho. Somebody is going to drag a webp into the system and have it be accepted. Someday… I hope…

    • _stranger_@lemmy.world
      41·
      3 days ago
      1. Fuck those people for telling you this after you did the work
      2. Those reasons are hard-stop stupid. If they REALLY cared about the marketing they’d release it silently or add a “improvements to image format handling” line and leave it at that.
      • Thorry84@feddit.nl
        3·
        2 days ago

        Maybe I worded it incorrectly. The feature was released in that version. They just didn’t mention it in the release statement they put out to their customers. I’m sure there’s some changelog somewhere people can dig into where it says something like what you mentioned. Or it can just be under “Various small improvements” which they always add as a catch-all.

        So I’m happy, I did the job and got paid. Everyone I worked with was happy. And the feature got released. It’s was just a let down it didn’t get mentioned at all, even though I put quite a lot of work into it.

      • jj4211@lemmy.world
        1·
        3 days ago

        I will second the suggestion at something like “expanded support for more image formats”. One of my responsibilities is rolling the development log into customer release notes and I agree with the “changes that highlight a previous shortcoming can look bad”, and make accommodations for that all the time. I also try to make sure every developer that contributed can recognize their work in the release notes.

        “Expanded image format support” seems like something that if a customer hasn’t noticed, they would assume “oh they must have some customer with a weird proprietary format that they added but have to be vague about”. If it were related to customer requests, I would email the specific customers highlighting their need for webp is addressed after pushing the release notes

    • Lemminary@lemmy.world
      1·
      3 days ago

      I hope somebody is happy with the work I put in tho. Somebody is going to drag a webp into the system and have it be accepted.

      And that was me! I mean, not with your software but with someone else’s years ago. Still, in a weird anachronistic karma sort of way, thank you for caring.

  • TriflingToad@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
    1·
    3 days ago

    for my use cases of memes or a PowerPoint type thing once in a while for school. Literally any image format works for me. I don’t care about quality (as long as it’s not REALLY bad) and just want to get the image from Google to the PowerPoint, and somehow GOOGLES own image format fails to work for GOOGLES PowerPoint product.
    I don’t understand how you can not support your own format 10 years after it came out.

    pro tip by the way, you can open it in Microsoft paint then “save as -> .PNG” to get Google slides/whatever to accept it.

    (before someone recommends alternatives, im talking about use on a locked down school computer. I can’t use alternative software that’s better because they block images in WIKIPEDIA, no shot for using an actual foss software lmao)

    • dual_sport_dork 🐧🗡️@lemmy.worldEnglish
      1·
      3 days ago

      use on a locked down school computer.

      Shift + Win + S

      I’ll bet they didn’t disable that in Group Policy. Lasso that sumbitch right off your screen and then just paste it into whatever.

  • Olissipo@programming.dev
    3·
    4 days ago

    I’m working on a project which generates images in multiples sizes, and also converts to WEBP and AVIF.

    The difference in file size is significant. It might not matter to you, but it matters to a lot of people.

    Here’s an example (the filename is the width):

    Also, using the <picture></picture> element, if the users’ browsers don’t support (or block) AVIF/WEBP, the original format is used. No harm in using them.

    (I know this is a meme post, but some people are taking it seriously)

    • TwistyLex@discuss.tchncs.de
      1·
      3 days ago

      Literally just today solved a problem of delivering analytics plots over our internal chat system. The file size limit is 28Kb and I was just getting ready to say screw it, can’t be done.

      Lo and behold our chat system that doesn’t support svg does support webp. Even visually complicated charts come in just below the size limit with webp.

        • TwistyLex@discuss.tchncs.de
          1·
          3 days ago

          Honestly no idea. It’s funny though. The API allows us to either read it directly from our lakehouse with the 28Kb limit, or allows us to encode it in a json object. It actually recommends using the json method if we want to send larger files… but then complains it’s too large if it’s over 28Kb 🤷‍♂️

          I think it was probably originally only intended to allow attaching icons.

    • HeyListenWatchOut@lemmy.worldEnglish
      1·
      4 days ago

      I’ve mentioned this topic in regards to animated images, but don’t see as big a reason to push for static formats due to the overall relatively limited benefits other than wider gamut and marginally smaller file size (percentage wise they are significant, but 2KB vs 200KB is paltry on even a terrible connection in the 2000s).

      What I really wish is that we could get more browsers, sites, and apps to universally support more modern formats to replace the overly bloated terribly performing and never correctly pronounced animated formats like GIF with something else like AVIF, webm, webp (this was a roughly ~60MB GIF, and becomes a 1MB WEBP with better performance), or even something like APNG…

      Besides wider gamut, and better performance, the sizes are actually significant on all but the fastest connections and save sites on both storage and bandwidth at significant scale compared to the mere KB of change that a static modern asset has.

      This WEBP is only 800KB but only shows up on some server instances since not every Lemmy host supports embedding them :

      • Olissipo@programming.dev
        1·
        3 days ago

        but 2KB vs 200KB is paltry on even a terrible connection in the 2000s).

        You still need to resize the images and choose the right ones (even if only for the device’s performance).

        So we might as well do that small extra step and add conversion to the process.

        What I really wish is that we could get more browsers, sites, and apps to universally support more modern formats to replace the overly bloated terribly performing and never correctly pronounced animated formats like GIF with something else like AVIF, webm, webp (this was a roughly ~60MB GIF, and becomes a 1MB WEBP with better performance), or even something like APNG…

        Isn’t that the users’ fault? And of the websites for allowing those huge GIFs.

        Apparently browsers have supported MP4 for a long time.

        https://caniuse.com/mpeg4

        • SpaghettiYeti@lemmy.world
          0·
          3 days ago

          How are you auto converting images to webp?? What is this magic. My company uses Visual Studio 2022 and our creative guy is having to save everything manually in multiple formats. Then our devs put in the webp first with a jpeg fallback, but it’s all so manual.

          • Olissipo@programming.dev
            1·
            3 days ago

            Funny you call it magic, what actually does the conversion is Imagick.

            In my project I have it integrated in the upload process. You upload a PNG/JPG and it does its thing. Since it’s written in PHP (my project), and PHP has an extension to call Imagick, I didn’t need to write any complicated code.

            You can see on this page if your programming language of choice has any integration with Imagick.

            But there’s always the command line interface. Depending on your process it may be easier to create a script to “convert all images in a folder”, for example.

      • Aux@feddit.ukEnglish
        02·
        3 days ago

        Because jxl is a bunch of bollocks. There’s no way it will gain any support any time soon.

      • AdrianTheFrog@lemmy.worldEnglish
        1·
        4 days ago

        Webp is supported in browsers. Jxl is not, unfortunately.

        (Well, I have the Firefox extension for it, but most people can’t see them…)

        People should still use it tho, with the fallback of webp or avif

        • ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca
          1·
          3 days ago

          Firefox just hasn’t enabled the setting (well they haven’t made the setting enable jxl support yet even though the setting and support has been there for years). This means their forks support it, that’s why I switched to Waterfox

          Safari supports it

          Chromium removed support for it 2 years ago to push webp but it’s just a reminder to not use Chromium browsers

        • Aux@feddit.ukEnglish
          02·
          3 days ago

          There are no browsers with jxl support and won’t be for many years to come.

        • Valmond@lemmy.world
          0·
          3 days ago

          So you have no hard proof (no critic here, I’m just curious)? Not that it’s better but that your test images has the same quality.

          For the rest, thank you for the links and the time but that only explains how the compression works.

          If you want to know you could do fourier transform and see which kind of signals are cut out in one for example.

          • ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca
            1·
            3 days ago

            Quality improvements are that you can upload/download it without getting artifacts/pixel bleeding. JXL’s algorithm ensures that it’s a 1 to 1 transfer

            But if I draw a stick person 512x512, there isn’t an image format that will make it anymore than it is. That’s why we look at compression

    • Fabian@lemmy.zip
      0·
      4 days ago

      I don’t know if the client is the issue, but I am using the Voyager android app and this image failed to load

  • skisnow@lemmy.caEnglish
    1·
    3 days ago

    The giant jpeg square artefact on the side of Homer’s head in the first frame undermines the message somewhat.

    • randomname@sh.itjust.works
      1·
      3 days ago

      Why does this even work though? WEBP and PNG are very different file formats yet for some reason this has always worked for me as well. Is windows automatically converting the files? I haven’t checked if changing the file extension changes the file size.

      • odelik@lemmy.today
        2·
        3 days ago

        WebP is an extended container around the RIFF file format, and contains the RIFF header info. So any container that is built off RIFF, or supports RIFF, can at least interpret the container data that is RIFF compatible and will lose anything that has been extended upon.

      • saltesc@lemmy.world
        2·
        3 days ago

        Wait till you find out what’s inside when you change Office files from .***x to .zip

  • phantomwise@lemmy.mlEnglish
    13·
    3 days ago

    Wait am I the only one who actually likes WEBP and is cheering for JPEG to finally die ? 😭

    • Overshoot2648@lemm.ee
      5·
      3 days ago

      Webp can die. JpegXL is better in every metric and can losslessly compress existing jpeg images. The chromium team has been notably trying to kill JXL because they spent so much time on AVIF and Webp despite neither offer anything close to JXL.

    • JigglySackles@lemmy.world
      31·
      3 days ago

      If webp didn’t come from google I might cheer it. I refuse to adopt any standard made by google if I can help it. If google made it, they made it with some reason or ability to alter it that’s nefarious and anti consumer. They wouldn’t make an improved open standard that wasn’t going to allow them to do shady shit.

      • valtia@lemmy.world
        0·
        3 days ago

        They made it because better image compression means less storage is required for images. Even if it’s a small upgrade, over trillions of images or exabytes of data saved translates into millions of dollars saved. This is the same thing for the delta format as another example

        By making .webp an open standard, more people will use it, thus more space savings will be had by default

          • valtia@lemmy.world
            0·
            3 days ago

            I’m sure Google literally doesn’t care, as long as a more effective compression algorithm is used. That’s why they made it an open standard, use whatever you want but don’t demonize .webp unnecessarily

            • tempest@lemmy.ca
              2·
              2 days ago

              Use whatever you want, but remember Google gets to decide what Chrome supports and if Chrome doesn’t support it…

            • Raltoid@lemmy.worldEnglish
              11·
              2 days ago

              I’m sure google doesn’t …

              Said everyone who’s never experienced google doing google things.

  • manxu@piefed.socialEnglish
    1·
    4 days ago

    The funniest thing is that even some of Google’s own products don’t accept Webp, like Google Voice.

    • bamboo@lemmy.blahaj.zoneEnglish
      2·
      3 days ago

      Shhhh just be happy Google Voice still exists, and isn’t in the graveyard. Personally I’d take RCS over webp in Google Voice.

      • manxu@piefed.socialEnglish
        1·
        3 days ago

        I feel with you. The product idea is awesome, the implementation is so-so, and progress is backwards. It’s heart-breaking, really, and so sad nobody has a real alternative.

  • gleb@lemmy.world
    01·
    3 days ago

    in my honest opinion, it’s a real shame that webp isn’t widely supported. it’s actually really great: it has awesome lossless compression, it’s so much smaller than a png while not losing any quality, it supports animation and loops, etc. it’s like jpg, png, and gif rolled into one format.