>Webp>AVIFI can't stand this shit anymore.
>>106749911name one thing wrong with those formats WITHOUT saying 4chan doesn't support them (that's 4chan's fault) and WITHOUT sounding madi'll wait
What's wrong with AVIF? 4cuck should support it instead of useless gif. Retards would unironically rather support arbitrary execution via 20 year old PDF implementation. The one good thing about rust is it should make it safer for companies to support new image codecs. In fact this is probably the only good usage of rust but troons would rather use it to make terminals and butplug controllers, basically anything were speed and safety aren't actually a problem they will use it
>>106749923>name one thing wrong with those formatsThis Anon.>>106749953>What's wrong with AVIF?He is a JXL supporter.
>>106749911literally who cares.
>>106750136>Random no name extensionDude what the fuck is wrong with you?
>>106750167It's featured.
>>106749923avif sounds like some indian pajeet shit
>>106749911>GPT-5, write for me an autoconverter on-download extension so all AVIF and WebP files become PNG
4chan could save lots of bandwidth if they switched to WebP or AVIF thumbnails.
>>106750184>>GPT-5, write for me an autoconverter on-download extension so all AVIF and WebP files become PNG>I'm sorry, but as an AI language model, I don't have the ability to write an autoconverter as it goes against the terms set by openAI.
>>106750197>AVIF>WebPBenefit?
>>106750237
>>106750274Ironically it's probably webp, not because it's better but because it covers 2 color spaces instead of 1.AVIF = YUVJXL = RGBWEBP = RGB + YUV
>>106750228werks on me machina
>>106750197no it would not, the efficiency increase when using a newer codec is exponential with resolution, a tiny 2 kikobyte low res thumbnail isn't getting much of an efficiency gain when using avif.
>>106750480Nah, AVIF was actually built from the ground up specifically to cater to thumbnails. Like that's it's main specialty and it seems to mogg all image formats even at low image resolutions.
>>106750744Which one should I pick AVIF or webp?
>>106749911>NOOOOOO NOT TECHNOLOGY NOT NEW TECHNOLOGY GO BACK TO HORSES PLEASElol
>>106750760AVIF and WebP both have the same shit compatibility but AVIF is higher compressed so I would go with AVIF.
>>106750780LOLNO. Webp isn't hardware decoded like AVIF is. Which for older hardware makes AVIF, DOA.
>>106750744>>106750988holy shit it's this bullshit againneither format is hardware decoded, you fucking retard>inb4 no avif can clearly be hardware decoded through an av1 decoder!ok so why couldn't webp be hardware decoded through a vp8 decoder? kys once and for all
>>106750744>barely 20% more efficient than jpeg, a 35 year old way less complex codec >mogssure
>>106751185It all adds up.
>>106751185May we please see a 4K resolution JPG image under 100KB that isn't dogshit quality?https://files.catbox.moe/ycknht.avif
>>106751171>newfag confuses Daiz wit pixDAIZ againsasuga
>>106751171What makes you think I'm that AVIF supporting kike, daiz?AVIF is LITERALLY meant to facilitate planned obsolescence. That's why Webp will be king. Any FUCKING TOASTER in the last decade can decode 9001 megapixels of Webp per second.
>>106751337>implying that whatever browser that doesn't support AVIF doesn't have security holes from being outdated>implying the original image will be converted, not just the thumbnail
>>106749923>pngHighest quality images>jpgLow quality but low filesize images>gifAnimated imagesThere's no need for anything more. Definitely not the webp garbage that's being pushed by Jewgle.
>>106751401Webp replaces all 3 you dipshit. Webp unlike inferior codecs like JXL/AVIF operates in BOTH YUV and RGB colorspaces.
>>106751401It's not "The Google is forcing webp onto us", it's a superior image format. AVIF is even better.
>>106751401you sound pretty mad lil vro
>>106751401JPEG doesn't support transparency. PNG is inefficient for noisy images with vast color ranges and will give you much higher filesizes. GIF has the 256-color problem.
>>106751456NOT really, it operates in YUV. It assumes the whole internet will abandon RGB.I seriously doubt this will happen.
>>106751502do you not understand the difference between "thumbnail" and "source image"
Thoughts?
>>106751542Yes you live near asia I see.
>>106751692Australia but nice try.It's literally in one of the file names.
>>106751518No I mean in image processing in general there is a problem in regards to how we treat images.RGB: we split down pixels down to Red, Green, and Blue values. When you mix them you get colors.YUV: More complex, splits pixels in Brightness intensity, and 2 color negatives.Some nerds believe YUV is the future and RGB belongs in the landfills pike floppy drives.
>>106751171Nah, that's SS2. Daiz doesn't talk like that.
>>106751502you have not even looked jpeg wikipedia page have you
>>106750237avif can use synthetic grain like its big brother av1
>>106754548????Anyway camera sensors capturing raw 4K 420 HDR 10-bit YUV signals already happens for video so this becoming the norm for images isn't a giant leap anymore.
Once you can just toss either webp or avif into any software like you can established formats, the complaining will mostly stop.I actually think separating the user-facing file extensions could help with that.Having a quick-to-notice, easy-to-recognize distinction between a lossy and a lossless format is a good thing. As for animated images, it's way too inconvenient to have to say "animated webp" every time - there's a reason "gif" is almost used as a regular word to describe any kind of animated images.
i dont use either of emand when i encounter one in the wild i just open mspaint
>>106749923they are trans formats, meaning they can be lossless and lossy, you never know what you getting with them.
>>106755512What do you call PNGs converted from JPGs then you blind nigger?
>>106749923Sure, here's one: 4chan might support them in the future.Fuck that.
>>106751401Are you me?
