I hate WEBP so much it's unreal.
>>108729550rook same
It's not a format issue anon.
>>108729550>>>/a/
>>108729550WebP is great actually, it's the websites fault that they use shitty quality compression to have a 2000x2000 image only use like 35 KB.
>>108729550what's the point of posting this without posting the file sizes of each?
>>108729572What is the point of the file size if the image is compressed to shit?
>>108729588What parameters did he use?
>>108729563>>108729566It absolutely is the format issue. WebP is advertised as the format that saves bandwidth, so that's how every website uses it, aggressively.
>>108729566Ok, but why use WebP when AVIF is better for anime-style images, and JXL is better for photographs?
>>108729550Just because some website made a bad implementation of it does not mean it is actually bad.Also stop supporting Personalami, an 'artist' that just traces over AI art, all of their shit past 2020 is just traced.
>>108729561>rook sameI really hope you are in your 50s because if you're not it's over.
why doesnt 4chan support WEBP are they stupid?
>>108729627He live streams, you can literally see that he is not tracing
>>108729643>why doesnt 4chan support WEBP are they stupid?There are no developers left on 4chan. it's an unmaintained codebase.
>my jerk off material must be authentic pixels >i need to feel the passion of the male artist who drew thiskinda gay desu
>>108729659Most artists of jerk off material are women.
>>108729633both make pp hard
>>108729643Too based to support shit formats
>>10872965973% of ero-doujinshi manga artists are female.
>>108729633I'm only 40.
>>108729684>I'm only 40.You should be wearing glasses form now on.
>>108729566Websites should not attempt to re-compress files in the first place, or even to change a single byte of the file.
>>108729668>>108729683that's nice, is the artist the thread was talking about female?
>>108729695why does it matter to you so much, are you insecure about your sexuality?
>>108729684>only 40go back to facebook
>>108729693>Websites should not attempt to re-compress files in the first place, or even to change a single byte of the file.In that case you'd need a filesize limit (no popular website will want to serve 30 MB PNGs), but you can't expect boomers and normgroids to learn how to to properly convert to a lossy format or just downscale their PNGs
>/g/ defends WebP with their livesI'm genuinely shocked.
nothing wrong with webp>>108729672this is the same guy that didn't update the server for 10+ years and got hacked
>>108729770Tell us why WebP is worse than JPG
>>108729787Because JXL exists, making both irrelevant.
you made this thread because you are retarded, the webp image is more compressed, that is the fault of the platform not of the format
>>108729550>twitterStop deadnaming X
>>108729801name one website that serves better quality webps than jpgs
>>108729550that's a png
>>108729826mine
>>108729791You're only considering the quality to filesize ratioAgain, websites don't want to serve images with large filesizes, and they can't expect normalfags to compress images themselves. WebP is popular because between it, JXL, and AVIF, it's the least resource intensive to encode, which is is something you actually care about when running a website literally billions of people use and need to compress literally quintillions of images
>>108729862>WebP is popularIt's only popular because Google forced it everywhere and didn't bother to add lossless JPEG compression, so no matter what, WebP will always look bad because most people upload JPEGs.
>my 2D jap porno file formats!Lol nigger fucking put a gun in your mouth and pull the trigger
>>108729769Just set a soft limit and warn that it'll be recompressed when attempting to upload anything larger.
.
>>108729925And leave an option to download the original file.
>>108729937What a fucking disaster
>>108729862>WebP is popular because ... Google forced it. That's it. No other reason.
>>108729858Bait or mental retardation?
>>108729627you can't make a good implementation of a shitty jewgle product
>>108729565anime websiteif you don't like it, you can always go to >>>/x/itter
>>108729672*very* rare rape ape W
>>108729550A) The format is not to blame if they used wrong compression settingsB) webp offers lossless mode, which is the best use case for it actuallyreally, stop reacting emotionally and see the reality you fucking niggers
WebP works pretty much everywhere now, it's only 4chan that is behind the times for ideological reasons.
>>108729550I wouldn't normally go down on a girl, but i would for megumin
>>108729993the other day I saw an anti-webp meme, like>worst format leland when I asked why and which programs don't support it,it was all >it just sucks ok?or>my pirated version of adobe writer from 2012 cannot open thisor >windows 7 ms paint cannot open webppeople literally morons
>>108729611At the same visual quality, webp uses less space. If websites don't encode by visual quality, it's their fault for being retarded
>>108729787google
>>108729550>use webp, save trillions of kbwow
>>108729550your image is broken - not ideally centered, you dumb fageven we can see the right image has some white border shit on right side.post 2 comparsion images if you want, as separate comment images(or kys)
>>108729998He's not even real.
>>108729937Is this real? Is webp really that bad?
>>108730353theoretically fake,in real world applications you just encode to webp just once.who in the name of fuck would just keep re-encoding a webp from a webp?truly baffling whoever thought of this testwhere is the test comparing png to lossless webp in file reduction,where the fuck is it?oh? it's because webp is clearly better than a png and it would just spoil the narrative?
>>108729550source?
>>108730377found it:
>>108730381that isn't a kawaii anime girl
>>108729550>tranny version of twitter doesn't know how to use appropriate webp compression settings>"webp bad reeee!"kOn a related note umigalaxy allows lossless processing of uploaded Webp files. Whatever quality you upload it with will stay that way for anyone who downloads it. Most places that do allow Webp uploads don't do this fyi.
>>108729561>>108729633He's probably on a tardphone. The difference isn't perceptible on a tiny screen.
>>108729550
>>108730367>who in the name of fuck would just keep re-encoding a webp from a webp?Images being re-encoded as users share and upload them to different websites is extremely common because many dogshit retarded services just encode & nuke the things people upload as standard procedure. It will also happen if the image is resized or cropped for whatever reason, which is also common. Are you new to the internet? This has been happening for literal decades and it's not stopping.
>>108729784>this is the same guy that didn't update the server for 10+ years and got hackedyesterday, people who hadn't updated their server for 10 years were the ones who didn't have to worry about getting hacked.
>>108730469
>>108730471ok so there is a test to measure how much of a fucking retard you are,downloading memes from 9gag pasting some text on them then re-saving as webp, and then sharing again,.that's not a proper metric for measuring how efficient an image codec isthis just proves that you are personally just an idiotyou are a fucking moron, computer illiterate know-it-all (doesn't really know anything) assholeCLUELESS ASSHOLE ,
>>108730353Not really, see >>108730428That retarded autistic video was created by the creator of jpeg xl but it does point to a serious problem on the web: when people download a webp image from the web it's already smaller than what the JPG would have been. When it's uploaded to another website that allows webp uploads, the website won't leave it alone, and apply yet another round of lossy webp compression to it. Repeat until what you're left with is a smoldering pile of dogshit quality.This isn't unique to Webp. If you save a JPG to quality 90, then 50, then 90, then 50... you'll also end up with a smoldering pile of dogshit quality
>>108729561
>>108730471Really trying to not sound like a shill here, especially since the website is still under construction, but umigalaxy is one of the few places that won't mess with webp uploads. If people want to share webp images they should look for places like that since it saves bandwidth/filesize for everyone while not raping image quality.If that place takes off I hope it gets an archive soon. Webp besides being better than JPG is also better than PNG and GIF.
>>108729561fpbp(first post blind post)
I hate that they basically forced it onto everyone, didnt tell anyone, made it impossible to convert, updated no software to support it, and to top it all over, embedded the fuck out of it with the most glowie slop imaginable.
>>108729550why are you encoding pictures?
>>108730555>an image compression format specifically created for the web should not take into consideration how images are commonly used and passed around on the webwhy are underages still not banned?
>>108730632Nobody was forced to use it, per-se, they just got SEO penalties because if website A uses JPG and website B uses Webp, then website B is going to load 30% faster at similar perceptual quality so it ranks higher in Google search results.Android (the main IRL target of Webp) has supported Webp in BOTH the browsers and native image viewers since like 2015. It's the desktop OSs that have lagged behind hard with the native image viewers.JPG doesn't free you from glowie shit btw, tracking EXIF data exists. If they really wanted you unde surveillance they can even hide shit within the pixels themselves and mask it as lossy compression artefacts.
https://github.com/AOMediaCodec/libavif/releasesAVIF WON
>>108729937Google engineers need a rope around their neck.
>>108730555chill anon, why so angry?
>>108731790because computer illiterate people spew out braindead nonsenseif you work with art assets and have thousands of png assets,you can save gigabytes on your ssd drive by converting all that shit to lossless webp.yet some illiterate children cry that >webp is bad lolbecause windows xp mspaint cannot them?and they think they are right.jesus fucking christ, some people need to find new hobbies or just shut the fuck up and never post online
>>108731824>tech illiterate incel STILL thinks he knows anything about image compression codecs
>>108729561looks washed
>>108729550Trio of modern gayTech : WebP, Rust, HTML5... Everything modern as it turns out is shit... GOOGLE troons are unsurprisingly a part of this problem too.
do computer illiterate morons know that webp offers lossless mode that is much better than png?also do all the computer illiterate mentally unstable crying children know that webp is supported in literally everything in the year of 2026?there are literally no downsides of using webp for storing assets.>yes jxl/avif do that alsobut they are not standardized,webp can be opened even in ancient android 4.4 phones, you know,,, from 2012....
>>108731844I work with images,you don'tI have spent countless years compressing images with various codecs, exploring all paremeters etc etcwebp works because all browsers support it,so I can just send a client an uncompressed webp and he can view it,even I might send them compressed webp with 90%+ compression if it is a preview,because I don't want to send a 100MB file, the browser will lag,but a 70MB webp is kinda better, so I choose that, You are just some clueless rando, so shut the fuck up pleasefor the love of god, stop talking, it is so embarrassing,close the tab and go hide somewhere because you are embarrassing yourself,
>>108729550i love megumin so much its unreal
>>108729937Kek, using webm to show that webp is bad>>108732062>>108732083This.
>>108732084>>108729998y tho
>>108729672There's WEBP support for ads though.
>>108730586so left is better?
>>108729672Faggot still didn't recover from PDF injection lol.
>>108729550I look like this
>>108732083>I have spent countless years compressing images with various codecs, exploring all paremeters etc etcall parameters?the simple fact that has been observed for decades that people re-encode and screenshot and fuck up images on the web over and over again IS a parameter you fucking retard, and a codec made for the web should take it into consideration.you're just an incel who thinks running some .exes that someone made makes you an "expert" LMAO
>>108732253he saved 4chan
>>108730555You can cope & seethe & impotently froth at the mouth as you have your autismal meltdown but that IS, in fact, how image codecs are used by all the shitty websites out there which are going to use webp to pinch more pennies.
webp is proprietary google trash
>>108732508>proprietaryWrong.
>>108732508I don't particularly like lossy webp (lossless is good though) now that AVIF exists but this is complete horse shit.>1. The “Google Made It” Factor>Let’s address the elephant in the room: WebP was created by Google. For some, that alone raises suspicion. Concerns over dominance, ecosystem control, and data centralization often surface in tech debates — and rightfully so. However, WebP is not proprietary, not exclusive to Google, and not a closed system.>In fact, WebP is open source, released under a BSD license. That means anyone can implement it, modify it, distribute it, or even fork it. In this regard, WebP is like the very infrastructure of the internet itself — built on open protocols, open standards, and open minds.https://jaredweisinger.medium.com/whats-your-reason-for-not-adopting-webp-yet-3761c3b56898
>>108732531might as well be, there's only one implementation that's maintained by google and they have to use their browser to astroturf it, no one wants it it was forced down people's throats
>>108732736No one wants smaller lossless images? Are you legit retarded?
>what is compression?
>>108732759you keep bringing up your strawman but no one on the web uses lossless webp, they use lossy and it's shitalso bandwidth isn't an issue in 2026 unless you're a thirdiealso there are better lossless formats than webp
>>108732793>also there are better lossless formats than webpYes but they use exponentially more cpu resources for decoding so they're not better for everyone.Keep in mind that this is coming from someone who advocates for AVIF but is willing to admit that without hardware acceleration, it's dead on arrival. Even then the hw decoding limits are going to make some people upset.
JXL is king.
>>108729566except that's literally the only use case where webp has a very slight (<10%) advantage in efficiency over modern jpeg encoders...https://siipo.la/blog/is-webp-really-better-than-jpeg
>>108730561>This isn't unique to Webp. If you save a JPG to quality 90, then 50, then 90, then 50... you'll also end up with a smoldering pile of dogshit quality...except you have no reason to convert the jpg to another jpg, while you do have a reason to convert webp to jpg, why aren't you accounting for this?
>>108732841
>>108729624Ok, but why use WebP or AVIF when JXL is better.sure, avif is better in the flat colors niche, but it'd be retarded to maintain a whole format when JXL does everything else way better
>>108733182JXL and AVIF are now on par with each other (sometimes AVIF can even be smaller), even in photographic content, ever since the iq tune not only got introduced but later became the default setting in libavif.https://www.reddit.com/r/AV1/comments/1rl8vmu/libavif_140_with_tune_iq_as_a_default_for_images/>80 = very high quality. Distortion not noticeable by an average observer in a side-by-side comparison at 1:1 from a normal viewing distance. This corresponds to the typical output of cjxl -d 1.5 / -q 85 or libjpeg-turbo 4:2:2 quality 85.https://github.com/cloudinary/ssimulacra2File size: 254 KB (~29% smaller than JPG)https://files.catbox.moe/ptvr88.avif--sharpyuv -s 6 -q 72 -d 10 -y 420 --cicp 1/13/1 -a tune=iqFile size: 284 KB (~20% smaller than JPG)https://files.catbox.moe/isrw29.jxl-q 91 -e 7 --override_bitdepth=10TBQF, the only reason why Jpeg XL hasn't been wiped from existence yet is because AVIF hardware accelerated decoding isn't widespread yet.
>>108729550I hate it because it doesn't play well with photoshop and a lot of web applications/services.Otherwise, the compression level is an incredible step up from jpg. I never actually compared images to see if it's making them duller though.>>108732240It's duller for sure. I didn't notice until they zoomed in. Doing design/front end most of my career, I've analyzed images up close to decide on compression levels countless times. But I don't think I've ever actually come across a website, unless obvious amateur stuff, where I noticed images were beat up by compression.Old jpgs circulating social media? Sure.Point is, I think people gloss over artifacts way more than web devs think.
>>108733218don't care, avif still loses in lossless compressionalso, JXL losslessly recompresses jpegs, that's an automatic win
>>108731824>the only usecase that matters is this niche one that I use where WEBP still loses to JXL and that's why WEBP is kingretard-kun, please
>>108733262>don't care, avif still loses in lossless compressionTrue but we have lossless webp for that. Lossless JPG recompression isn't as impressive as visually lossless JPG recompression. https://files.catbox.moe/5gvirl.avifJPG filesize was reduced by about 75% and achieved 89.4 SS2. Lossless JPG recompression saves what, 10%?
>>108733275>True but we have lossless webpJXL is also better than webp for losslessalso, the colors are different between the jpeg you posted and the avif you linked, that's not fucking lossless
>>108733301>also, the colors are different between the jpeg you posted and the avif you linkedLet me take a wild guess, firefox? ~90 SS2 is visually lossless.
>>108733355yeah, that was my badI opened them in gimp and diff'dstill, lossless recompression is closer to -25% size, on that one it's -40%and, I just realized, avif really sucks at grayscale lossless, wth, it 5x the size, webp also increases filesize, while jxl is better than png
>>108729937I find the .jpg hard to believe, unless i am missing somthing.When i was young and tarded and used to edit jpgs, they would end up bland, shitty and soulless looking after only a few dozen saves.
>>108734219jpeg crunches 8x8 blocks to a few specific patterns for their compression, that's why it gets blocky noisebut if an image already has that format, reencoding as jpeg won't do anything at all, only if you change the quality settings where it crunches less or more, which since it already got compressed its gonna have smaller error so it convergesproblem with webp is that it recreates the image instead so the errors compound instead
>>108729550i fear the autism required to notice the difference
>>108729550>>108729964lossless webp is great though>>108729566probably this too>>108729992>>108730007definitely these>>108730353it’s that bad in lossy mode if you take a lossily-compressed image and use it to squish it even harder>>108730632I get all kinds of conversion stuff from it on macOSget a less-shitty OS>>108732228I could have sworn that WebP wasn’t an option actuallylike, some parts of danbo.org say WebP is OK and other parts don’t have it on the whitelist
>>108734602time to upgrade that 720p monitor, grandpa
>>108729550>set jpeg quality to 10%>FUCKING JPEG REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEOP you fucking retard. bsky having a shit quality setting has nothing to do with webp other than it alllows for shit quality settings EXACTLY LIKE JPG DOES.KILL YOURSELF.
>>108729611> save bandwithLol, it doesn’t matter when there’s megabytes of unused javascript from 3 frameworks ports and versions in there… webp isn’t even roundoff error.And google is the worst.
>>108729550>>108729561>>108729563>>108729565>>108729566>>108729633what artist/artstyle is the op, chat??
>>108730471>Images being re-encoded as users share and upload them to different websites is extremely commonSharing and uploading images doesn't re-encode them though. If I upload an image here on the 4chinz the file presented to you is bit for bit identical.A website fucking with your images has NOTHING TO DO WITH WEBP
>>108736104>load frameworks ONCE>load thousands of images per users sessionKill yourself retard.
>>108734659> other parts don’t have it on the whitelistSimple and obvious ploy to gain adoption with designed-in zero-days because all the .png holes were closed years ago.Be less obvious about who you are.
>>108733301>it's better bro>use it in my application>takes a fucking eternity to open my wtf huge images while lossless webp loads instantlyIt sucks ass fuck off with your gayXL
>>108736116You need to figure out how to look at the network tab. One day. Also, even when loaded, the obfuscated anti-ad-blocking is constantly morphing the code, and it’s inefficient as hell. The overall speed (which is the real concern) is mostly javascript frameworks doing useless shit. The difference in speed between webp and png is negligible compared to everything else.Don’t burst a vein in your neck shilling so hard.
>>108729550>there's a futa version :^)
>>108729550same, only thing I hate more is macbook.
>>108736108https://danbooru.donmai.us/posts/11235477
>>108729937>5000 generations later WebP is 10× smaller than the second best optionAnother WIN for WebP!
https://code.videolan.org/videolan/dav2dAVIF WONJPEG & WEBP OUTDATED OBSOLETE CUC_KS LOST
>>108736116Pedosky, which is the platform in question here, has a massively declining userbase. Bandwidth isn't their concern, because their requirements are getting less and bandwidth is getting cheaper.So what is the motivation here?Storage? But they have to store the originals anyway, for legal reasons at least, even if they don't offer it to the user. You need more storage if you store more formats.And when it is about loading times. Round-trips and bloated javascript bundles are the main concern.
>>108736700AVIF is only useful for anime low-fidelity images. JXL is for everything else.
>>108736700>link to AV2So when is AVIF2 coming out and will AVIF2 manage to become popular before AVIF3 is around?Currently nobody is going to keep up with this trash low-quality compression, if its getting replaced every other year anyway.
>>108732793I do>>108732841Nothing supports the full features of avif despite its efficiency. Animated avifs, transparent avifs, and the lossless mode is worse than webp's.
https://aomedia.org/blog%20posts/Libavif_v1_4_0-Boasts-Major-Updates-to-Encoder-Technology/AVIF WONJPEG CUC_KS LOST
>>108729550Me too, sister. God it feels good being a woman and getting fucked in my pussy!
>>108732083>webp works because all browsers support it> I don't want to send a 100MB file, the browser will lag,get the fuck out of here. people live in the first world with a fast computer and gigabit net access. most of us anyway>You are just some clueless randoraging and seething. seething and raging.
>>108736857I made animated AVIFs in the past and they rendered find in desktop and mobile browsers. The only problem with AVIF is lack of hardware acceleration, which yeah itself is limited, but even a "weakened" 10-bit 4:2:0 4K max/tile variant of AVIF is competitive with Jpeg XL even in photographic images since the IQ tune is now enabled by default.https://files.catbox.moe/gbidfc.avif
>>108736134not sure what programs you're using but gimp loads 12000x6000 images at the same speed no matter the formatmeanwhile, the original JPG is 18MB, lossless JXL is 14MB, and lossless Webp is 64MB...
>>108737670I like jxl but the decoder needs like a metric fuckton of optimizations right now. Being limited to expensive devices isn't going to help you get adoption.
Why are you guys even arguing about image formats when PNG shits on all of them and will always be the best option lmao
>>108729770no one does. every webpiss and tel avif shill post is made by daiz.>>108730428>>108732533>>108732841>>108733218spam posts by daiz's bbots.https://desuarchive.org/g/thread/108545582/#108563559if you didn't notice, you're a subhuman and you're about to get scammed by a j33t if you haven't already.
>>108737749because PNG doesn't shit on all of themJXL has better lossless compression than any other format, specially with jpeg sourcesJXL can actually compress all your jpgs and pngs and guarantee a smaller filesize without visual losses, no other format can do that
if you are trying to serve images on browser, user uploaded ones that dont need to be the exact same, just so that the information on them is clear and the size of the images can be extremely large...what is the format to use?currently at my work we use webp and surely this is the reasonable choice since it provides the best support?
>>108737823webp with a reasonable quality setting is fineit's the only new format that is widely supported in browsers, and that's the only metric that actually matters, annoyingly
>>108730455nta but I'm on a 24" monitor and it rook same to #metoo, you people need to get a damm hobbyt. strong autistic opinions about vibration control in my quartz watch seconds hands
>>108737876if you can't see the difference you're either blind or not actually paying attentionit's really blatantly obvious how low quality bsky is
>>108734659 (redditor)>>108729566WebPiss is dog shit. It can't losslessly compress a JPG file, and the person who made its lossless compression abandoned it for JXL; which can not only losslessly compress JPG, but re-construct the JPG file as well. JXL's lossly compression is better than WebPiss too.>>108730367>who in the name of fuck would just keep re-encoding a webp from a webp?Websites and retards like you that sperg out when the encoding takes more than 10 seconds>>108736857JXL dwarfs on Tel Avif, which is hardly surprising, as Tel Avif is a literal fucking video frame being looped 24/7. On the off chance you're not Daiz, get help instead of getting scammed by him.
>>108737749>PNG shits on all of them and will always be the best optionIf you're using 20 year old hardware maybeOutside of compatibility with ancient hardware, JXL is superior to PNG in every way
>>108737876How the fuck does it look the same to you? The JPG looks like a normal illustration while the webp looks like it's a screenshot from a low bitrate video, everything is fuzzy.
>>108729561That's because the point of the thread is for someone to organically ask who the artist is, and then some anon can organically answer, linking all the artist's socials. And if you point this out, the authentic non-shills (who are all OP, btw) start calling you insults in ebonics.
