How should we punish the inventor of this crime against humanity?
>>107721983If 4chan would have implemented it right away you wouldn't have ever had a single problem with it.
>>107722063fpbp
lots of other imageboards already support it for years with no problemsit's a 4chan problem
>>107722063Lmfayo no nigger, kill yourself.
>>107721983Guy behind webp, ukraine flag ofc, very woke.
>>107722063Accurate, but this is the reality we inhabit.
>>107721983seems like a reasonable format for generic web slop delivery. pretty trash for image boards 2bqh.
>>107722344Depends, for some reason this seems to be 1337 hax0r knowledge BUTT: Webp can do both lossy and lossless compression. Lossy can sometimes be good depending on the content but generally loses to mozjpeg. However the hidden gem of webp is its lossless compression and the reason you rarely hear about it is because apparently it was CPU intensive to decode until recently. It also seemed to have outperformed FLIF in terms of decoding speed as well which is why that never took off lol.https://cloudinary.com/blog/flif_the_new_lossless_image_format_that_outperforms_png_webp_and_bpg
>>107721983yes
>>107722510post jxlalso retards always pretend like generation loss doesn't matter but they're wrong
>>107722262The real bad thing doesn't even have anything to do with webp or jpg but with fucking webmins raping internet standards when they serve a webp after the browser requested a jpg.That are the actual people that deserve to be teared and feathered.
>>107722063It’s broadly incompatible, not just here. I use imagemagick to convert them to pngs/jpgs. That half the reason I have wsl so I can in one go convert them without opening a gui. So annoying. On my phone I have to screenshot them before uploading
>>107721983What even is the benefit of this shit for the end user supposed to be?
>>107722832see >>107722429But shit-for-brains OP isn't here to discuss technical merit.
>>107722429>web devs dump 40 frameworks into everything and use a gigabyte of ram for dumb shit>web devs also try to force a shitty standard because a 1mb png file is unacceptable, we must convert it to 600kb in a format nobody wants
>>107722893Bandwidth = $$$$Webp lossless isn't perfect but at least it's not as dogshit as FLIF.
WebP is just some Chrome dev's pet project that they tried to force into popularity using Chrome's marketshareIt's no wonder that the Chrome team refused to support JXL for years even as other huge players in the pictures/imaging industry threw their support behind JXL and only now has Chrome reluctantly said "y-yeah we'll take a look again at supporting JXL in Chrome"
>>107723016To be fair, JXL decoding speed is terrible. Supposedly a rust implemented decoder is supposed to speed up JXL decoding but I dunno man, it's rust...>"we would welcome contributions to a performant and memory-safe JPEG XL decoder in Chromium"https://devclass.com/2025/11/24/googles-chromium-team-decides-it-will-add-jpeg-xl-support-reverses-obsolete-declaration/
>>107722429>However the hidden gem of webp is its lossless compression and the reason you rarely hear about it is because apparently it was CPU intensive to decode until recently. 99.99% of the time pictures are used on the internet nothing of this shit matters.
>>107721983why do faggots blindly hate webp again? lossy shit will always look terrible, may as well pick the one that saves the most bandwidth (I use JXL btw)
>>107723083Because it's shoved into your face even when you requested a different format from the server.
>>107723074Lossy makes sense for giant 50MP camera images not 720p/1080p movie/anime screenshots popular here desu. Especially when you factor in that the original video is already damaged by lossy H264 compression.
>>107723130>oh noes a picture that I looked at for 0.1s has artifactsIt generally doesn't fucking matter.
>>107723230I'll post a comparison soon but I'm telling you man, I would much much rather prefer all those 720p/1080p video screenshots be lossless webp instead of quality 99 JPG/lossy webp/whatever other meme formats exist out there.
>>107723083>bandwidthsthis isn't the 90s, grandpa shit is dirt cheap and JPEG is good enough.
>>107723278I'm not talking about lossy slop though, I'm referring to lossless.
>>107721983It's a fine format to encode I-frames in a modern video codec. Whoever took the decision to us it to encode still picture should be hanged though.
>>107723289you can have loseless JPEGs too
