>>108272413
It is. It's not supported anywhere. Fuck your meme format.

>>108272419
What are you talking about?

Photoshop natively supports WebP.
Affinity Photo natively supports WebP.
Krita natively supports WebP.
GIMP natively supports WebP.
Blender natively supports WebP.
Kdenlive natively supports WebP.
Even MS Paint natively supports WebP.

File: 18141 - SoyBooru.png (510 KB, 1017x1048)

510 KB PNG

>>108272419

>>108272413
Not bad, but a technically unnecessary scam.
It’s an attempt by google to monetize leftover patents they acquired by some fly-by-night company they mistakenly bought.

File: sneyers.jpg (1.25 MB, 4096x3492)

1.25 MB JPG

He won.
https://www.phoronix.com/news/Chrome-145-Released

>>108272438
Just buy the latest versions of everything, new hardware, new cloud Adobe shit, new Winblows 11, new HDR mon… oh… wait… doesn’t even support HDR.

>>108272444
Webp doesn't have licensing fees

>>108272413
>le extreme compression (((test)))
kill yourself

>>108272465
Ever since Affinity became free to use, Photoshop and MS Paint are now the only apps on that list that cost money (MS Paint being paid for through a Windows 11 license).

File: 1749645418688422.png (464 KB, 697x646)

464 KB PNG

>>108272472
>"NOOOO go- I mean guy!, don't do any real world tests, you have to test at my kosher quality 99 settings!!! wahh!!!"

>>108272413
Webp is awesome actually and I'm tired of pretending it isn't.

>>108272468
Not yet it doesn’t.
The first sniff is free. Get wide adoption, then start enforcing some of the patents.
And don’t think they’re not planning a “WebP 2.0 HD extreme” version for obsolescence reasons. Planned, that is.

>>108272478
> photoshop
Nobody uses the creative cloud versions except idiots

File: 1748333612257465.jpg (165 KB, 700x1083)

165 KB JPG

>>108272490
>2 more weeks!
Isn't Jpeg XL officially a microsoft patented image format now? Or did they reverse that shit?

Arr rook saem

>>108272487
>real world test
lmaoing at your disingenuous ass, faggot

File: PXL_20260220_181714866.RA(...).jpg (494 KB, 4080x3072)

494 KB JPG

>>108272505
Nothingburger.
https://medium.com/@dat.sword/about-microsofts-rans-patent-998c8511fb1a

>>108272505
> jpegxl
We don’t need that shit either

>>108272501
Most professionals who use Photoshop for their jobs use the CC versions. The old CS versions are not compatible with features introduced in later versions such as variable fonts, artboards, advanced smart objects and Camera Raw filters.

>>108272413
Looks better, but how big is the difference at more realistic file sizes? I mean it's 2026, I do not have a need to compress my images down to 30kB. 1MB is fine, even more than that is fine.

>>108272527
> variable fonts
Used more in Illustrator
> raws
Jesus, if the only tool you have or know how to use is photoshop you should probably get out more

The rest of that shit is fluffy garbage for the unskilled

>>108272517
So the microsoft jpeg xl patent issue has not been dealt with yet?

File: FLIF vs WebP vs BPG vs JP(...).webm (1.92 MB, 720x383)

1.92 MB WEBM

.

>>108272413
>>108272487
>it's the jews lol do I fit in yet?
Are you even trying? Go back.

>>108272413
90% of webp files served on the web are converted from jpg sources
thats why webp is hated

File: 1754675396880807.jpg (152 KB, 1024x768)

152 KB JPG

>>108272769
Every single webp vs jpeg xl comparison I've seen was done at quality 99. You know, like something is being hidden from us...

>>108272793
> 90% converted from jpeg
Oh, like 90% of Rust code was converted by c2rust from C. Makes sense.

File: 1742797622588902.webm (1.3 MB, 960x540)

1.3 MB WEBM

>>108272793
To be fair this isn't necessarily as bad as you think it is. I don't know the exact percentage but a lot of IRL web JPGs use chroma sub sampling, which Webp also uses, often making the lossy compression acceptable.

When JPGs that don't use chroma sub sampling then you run into huge quality degradation issues.

File: current thing.png (1.96 MB, 600x2000)

1.96 MB PNG

>>108272813
"Quality 99" is rather meaningless. Most comparisons use a trusted metric like SSIMULACRA2 at something like 80.

>>108272413
webp is proprietary googleslop
>but muh open source
there's one implementation which google controls
fuck your shitty corporate shilling

>>108272438
4chan does not support WebP.
end of story

>>108272413
now do the same but lossless
I don't wanna put my images through a fucking meatgrinder

>>108272439
kek i whish my phone supported it...

>>108272487
30kb for an image hasn't been a thing since the 90s in first world countries.

>>108272419
Only one that doesnt support is 4chan, thats why we have people claiming webp bad.

>>108272413
these both look like shit

>>108272439
I do not want to go get some libav dependent software just to view a lossy image file. There are many reasons for this, not the least of which is that these file formats are horribly complex and the decoders tend to try and use hardware with varying amounts of correctness and support.

TL;DR: for the same reason no one uses gif for icons anymore, fuck off and send a jpeg.

File: Untitled.png (498 KB, 1855x960)

498 KB PNG

>>108273105
No but it hasn't actually improved that much all things considered. Most of the important high traffic websites hosting images tend to hover around 100-200 KB. The reason 4chan is able to host user uploaded 4MB JPGs is because, especially now, there's only like a few hundred users accessing 4chan concurrently. Meanwhile ebay has to host images like this one which is viewed by 6 million users and if it were a shitty 4MB JPG it would be very very expensive.

File: 3233.png (965 KB, 557x797)

965 KB PNG

4kikes won't let me fucking post the small ~125 KB Webp so here's the bloated ~1MB PNG generated from that Webp instead.

>>108273170
Hardware doesn't apply to Webp AFAIK, otherwise google would be shilling how ot decodes 100X faster than Jpeg XL.

>>108273252
>kikes
Would you shut the fuck up? If anyone is pushing webp it's the jews.

File: a5QgGwV_460swp.png (150 KB, 460x335)

150 KB PNG

>>108273258
I dunnno man, I thought AVIF was the jew thing, the common nickname "tel-avif" kinda implies that...

>>108273021
Hiromoot can decide to add support at any time.

File: hellspawn.jpg (81 KB, 1280x720)

81 KB JPG

>>108273288
Haven't you gotten the memo? Everything is Jewish in this godforsaken place, whether it be Tel Avif or JewXL.

>>108273288
webp is jewish in that it is being pushed & enforced on you and every jpg is being served as webp because Google says to do so.

File: 8067607_campbell.png (115 KB, 655x467)

115 KB PNG

>>108273662
It has nothing to do with taking a sledgehammer to image hosting costs? I mean I bet every website on the planet would much prefer to host 4MB JPGs instead of 100-200 KB Webp images...

But it's not cheap.

File: rjaiwoejroa.png (127 KB, 876x1000)

127 KB PNG

why does ANYONE care about webp, jpeg, etc
the majority "photograph" images people share nowadays online are screenshots of highly compressed video on social media, where there is no detail left to preserve anyway. these videos are often posted on one site then re-uploaded on another site, where the quality degrades more and more. in the event someone makes a jpg/png/webp/etc out of it, it's too late.
and in the event that someone does take a Real Photo of something, their camera (or social media software) will filter the hell out of it ruining any semblance of detail anyway.
here's a pic of john fetterman giving an interview to fox news. notice how it doesn't matter what format you use to share this photo because the quality is zero

File: 1768907926786250.png (1.98 MB, 1858x1080)

1.98 MB PNG

>>108273766
Because there's finite resources on the web, see post above you. It would be pretty fucking nice if cameras would start defaulting to Webp output so instead of websites butchering the image quality further they'd just leave it alone. However that would require a monstrous amount of co-operation that would make the UN look like a joke. So I guess we'll probably be stuck with JPG until the heat death of the universe...

>>108272813
is that Tomar the Terrible?