When will Hiro start supporting this technology?
hopefully never
shit technology, spit on webp and all of it's advocates!
>>106996328When rapeape stop having a skill issue, never.
>>106996328It’s not a technology, it’s another google scam.
>>106996328Never because 90% of 4channers have 0 fucking clue that it replaces GIF and PNG better than it replaces JPG. So all they see is a JPG converted to webp and will go around moaning "WEBP BAD!".BEST case scenario is we get jpeg2000 and I'm not joking. We recently got H264 support instead of AV1. 4chan is officially the fax machine of the internet.
no usecase
web penis
>>106996454:----------DDd
when are we getting AV1 and HEVCwhen are we getting JPEG XLwhen are we getting AVIFwhen are we getting gifvwhen are we getting literally anything good
>>106996547You VILL get JP2000UNDYOU VILL BE HAPPY
What's up with that? At least do it for the thumbnails. Would save a lot of bandwidth.>>106996357It's more efficient than jpeg. Even lossless webp is far better than png. You wouldn't use bmp instead of png in 2010.
>>106997505There's some nuance there. Webp IS more efficient than a very specific variant of JPEG that uses chroma sub sampling.There's 3 versions of JPG:420 blaze it JPG422 muh 1337 photography JPG444 muh fidelity JPGOther than that yeah, Webp curbstomps PNG/GIF 6 feet under the ground.
What is the usecase for webp?
>>106998851Besides saving bandwidth/space it supports lossy transparency with lossy compression, which is a thing we currently don't have.Personally users don't really benefit from Webp because storage is very cheap now. Bandwidth for websites however, continues being a huge burden which is why they're switching to Webp.
webp is incredibly inefficient. efficiency doesn't begin and end with GOOG's data fees.
>>106998983How is 20-30% better compression efficiency over JPG "incredibly inefficient"? Like I get hating Webp because fucking 4chicanery doesn't support it despite gorrillions of other websites adopting itBUTTOn average when you take into account photographic images AND chinese cartoon ones you hit 20-30% better compression efficiency over JPG.Like AFAIK that's what Google measures in their test. You can easily fudge the numbers to like 50% better compression efficiency if you only look at chinese cartoon sources and unfairly shill Webp but that's not what Google did.I don't even like google, Android has gone to shit but you're making me defend them you fucking imbecile.
>>106996328the fact that the creator of 4chan is called an hero always cracks me up
>>106999787> “Everybody’s doing it”Ok guy.It’s inefficient because it take more computation.Also, it’s unnecessary.Google burns more data with angular in a single day than webp will ever save in it’s entire history.Get educated before you start shilling.
>>106999901>It’s inefficient because it take more computation.That's more tricky to answer because YES, hardware accelerated JPG encoders will leave Webp in the dust. However their compression efficiency is also really dogshit so Webp ends up with 40-60% better compression efficiency instead of just 20-30% vs nvjpeg.Can Webp's huge compression efficiency over nvjpeg make up for the latter churning 6 million JPG images per hour? I dunno.
>>106999957forgot sourcehttps://developer.nvidia.com/nvjpeg
>>106997568webp only supporting 1 type of chrome downsampling is the reason why it will always remain the designated shitting format.It is a shame about the lossless version, which is probably the best lossless format we have. AVIF is huge step back on that front.
>>107000388To be fair this is gradually becoming more of a boomer talking point because chroma sub sampling artefacts are harder to identify in high density displays like those found in modern day laptops/tablets/phones.
>>106996328they support webm which for all intents and pruposes is a "colleciton" of webp. each frame is rendered using vp8/vp9 and a webp is rendered with the same codec. so each frame in a webm is rendered in the same way a webp is. make it make sense.
>>106996357Why? That's literally the reason why people who frequently use this website hate this format
>>107000447It is irrelevant if you consider cacheslop quality to be webp's only objective -- which it is.But yeah, it will also never be popular because nothing supports it. Also generation loss in webp is abysmal.
>>107000490NOT REALLY. VP8 and VP9 have full blown hardware decoding but Webp does not. Webp is like a + version of VP8 that never got hardware acceleration. For example it has an adjustable macroblock filtering option to control how much Webp turns images into melted butter (default settings are unsurprisingly terrible).>>107000531It is VERY relevant because there were virtually 0 commercially affordable high density displays around 2010 when Webp was released. Thus the chroma artefacting was very obvious.Fast forward to 2025 and for around $100, 90% of poorfags can now purchase a tablet with a 200+ PPI display.
>inb4 "you don't need more than 720p on a tablet"Get glasses already, jesus christ.
I think it would be nice to use 4chan without seeing CSAM being posted in random threads. Not sure what’s going on. Is the site going to get shut down?
>>106996328Once WebP images started working on my machine & my photo manager started handling them I really turned around on WebP. It's nice having a 40% space saving lossless image compared to png. Now I just wish I could use them anywhere.What we really need is jxl, that's another good format.
>>107000825God willing.
>>107000876JXL is a bit of IFFY format. Like it's great but the computational leap in encoding/decoding is pretty brutal. Could change in another decade if CPU advancements don't stagnate.
>>107000898I just like the features, if it gets major adoption people will figure out acceleration I'm sure.
>>107000924I wouldn't hold my breath. I just recently bought an Android 15 phone. Cocksucking piece of shit doesn't have AV1 hardware decoding. Whoever decided to save $0.10 of silicone deserves to be jobless desu.
>>107000935Android TV is even worse, some of them can't even handle h264 or h265.t.hosts a jellyfin instance
>>107000948h265 I can understand due to kike fees but no h264 should be investigated by consumer protection committee or whatever. The again that orange white nigger probably cut funding to that to allocate more money to israel...
>>106996428>>106996670anyone who mentions jpeg 2000 is trolling
>>106996328why must you shill proprietary google formats?
>>106996328Wait until you hear about avif....Javascript buddies like you should be [redacted] *toilet flushing*
>>106998970Storage isn't a problem for 4chins because it deletes old threads. Unlike some other abominations. If I had an imageboard it would self destruct any threads older than 24 hours. So long containment generals and discord faggots.
>>106996428>We recently got H264 support instead of AV1H264 is better than AV1. AV1 is a cancer trash format that consumes a lot of CPU. Vp8 sucks and VP9 is basically just a shittier version of AV1.What really should happen is Poogle and Pozilla add support for H.265 into browsers so we can use that too.
>>107000736>VP8 and VP9 have full blown hardware decoding but Webp does nothardware decoding for an image is not efficient because you have to pass data between cpu and gpu and that has setup time and overhead. the only reason hardware decoding works for videos is because you can pass big batches of data at once and have the gpu crunch it.
>>106997505i don't care if it's more efficient. almost no software or websites supports it.
>>106996328
>>107002316it's not proprietary
>>106996357Fibipipy/thread
