Does anyone else feel like we're being too hard on WebP? It's not great at photographs but it seems to compress Anime images just fine. Sometimes even better than JXL.
>>108983053Source image is picrel.
isnt jxl mostly for hdrI think avif is the future since it compresses hdr images well
>>108983053Shouldn't use the same extension for both lossy and lossless compression.
>>108983072dunno but webp came out in 2008 so it has the fastest decode performance compared to JXL and AVIF which is why it won't die.Downside is that it seems to suck for photographs. I'm not really here to shill for Webp so I'll post comparisons here for that too.>>108983088Lossy PNG images exist mein fuhrer. Extension guarantees nothing.
>>108983095Indexed color isn't quite the same thing, but, fair.
Sort of, most people are just mad a lot of software / websites don't support it.
>>108983072I thought the main thing was it could compress jpg losslessly and at a higher ratio.
Proof that I'm not a WebP shill. It's subtle but WebP turns photographic images all plastic-y.Interestingly VMAF failed to predict that WebP was inferior which is why mutli-metric results are the best.
>>108983351picrel = source
>>108983109Lossy PNG does not necessarily mean indexed color.Let me introduce a useful tool: https://github.com/richgel999/rdopngWhen you don't want to compress an image to JPEG (because that image has some transparent areas) or to WebP (because WebP is not supported on an imageboard, like here, or because an image's height is larger than 16383 pixels and thus won't fit in WebP), then lossy PNG is your answer until AVIF becomes supported.
>>108983166Literally the only actual reason it's hated. No one would have any issue with WebP if it just worked like JPG/PNG. Though, I think it's mostly a non issue these days. 90% of things people use seem to support it now, thus complaints are far lower than they used to be.
>>108983053An image format supports everything or it’s worthless
>>108983053I work with images, like textures and assets.I have literally converted all my png files to lossless webpthey can be from 25%-70% smaller in size, so big win.all the programs I use support webp, and all the web shit supports webp also,so I can just send some normie a webp file and their browser will display it just fine>now that I think about it, everything supports webpso who dislikes webp?personally I think it is dumb people,or faggots who keep using windows 7 that doesn't show webp previews in explorer or something
>>108983053You can thank the cancer, arbiter of regression that is Apple, for that
>>108985111>people use explorerGross.
>>108985111>so who dislikes webp?>personally I think it is dumb people,You are the dumb people. You are using WebP as a more efficient PNG. 99% of WebP in the fucking wild is a CDN recompressing an already twice compressed JPG or something into a 6 KB WebP.
>>108985448anon do you have a dent in your head?seriously, do you know how to readI said that converting PNG to WEBP lossless is helpfuland here you are being an absolute retard spewing irrelevant things.yes the web compresses everything you upload to webp. and?what does that have to do anything with working with assets?are you seriously so fucking stupid? off your meds? why are you being so emotional?also who the fuck cares about recompressed webp in the wild?give me a fucking argument.anyone serious with working with images and assets would never download a lossy image fileto use on their projects, and when I do send some webp to colleagues or clients I always put '(lossless)' on the filename and I have to explain to those normies that yes webp does come in a lossless variety.anyway, you are being an emotional faggotbe better
>>108983053Now encode an image of a picture of a real person if you even know how real people look retarded faggot
>>108985717see >>108983351
>>108985111>so who dislikes webp?People that need more than 8 bit.color depth and resolutions higher than 16383x16383 pixels, and people that want high quality lossy compression (lossy WebP always uses 4:2:0 chroma subsampling, which sometimes causes significant artifacts, and the only available encoder still doesn't have great psychovisual optimization, leading to blur and loss of detail).
>>108985111I just did a lossless compression of >>108983356 and I honestly expected JXL to achieve like 30% better compression but I only got 14% better compression.It's a little disappointing desu.599 KBcwebp -lossless -m 6 -q 100 in.png -o out.webphttps://files.catbox.moe/wsp9wp.webp514 KBcjxl in.png out.jxl --brotli_effort=11 -e 10 -d 0https://files.catbox.moe/bcmi70.jxlMaybe I'm using the wrong settings in cjxl? If so can anyone tell me what the correct ones are?
>>108986085>lossy WebP always uses 4:2:0 chroma subsampling, which sometimes causes significant artifactsThis is somewhat mitigated with -sharp_yuv in cwebp but AVIF's implementation is often so much better that it curb stomps JXL sometimes.It's fascinating how much extensive human work has gone into destroying 75% of color information in an image but then rebuilding it back up again...
>>108986153-sharp_yuv is only slightly less terrible.
>>108987030Meanwhile, JPEG.
>>108987038And here's the original.
>>108985111>I have literally converted all my png files to lossless webpSame. I think overall, I saved like 1/3 of the space. Most ppl could probs save slightly more than me tho, as my PNGs had already been optimized with optipng at max settings.
>>108987665nice
>>108985573lol
png or death
>>108989924so do you also store all your music files in .wavlike 650 megabytes for an hour of music?so you throw away 25+ years of research on data compression.either too fucking stupid and uneducated or a massive faggot.
lotta trannies on /g/ tonight.
>>108983053no, webp is a halfway measuresure, it has a niche where it shines, but it's a dogshit format to completely overhaul the extremely well-established formats of jpg and pngwebp isn't a universal format, if you want to use it everywhere then you can't you'll still need other formatsjxl, however, is universal
>>108990002>jxl, however, is universalNot objectively. It's great overall but not universal since it has a higher decode complexity compared to Webp so it doesn't play nice with all devices.
>>108990002Subjectively picrel should be made illegal. It and many others like it are singlehandedly keeping humanity technologically immature.
>>108983053you will use jpg/jpeg and png/bmp, or gif/webmconform or die>muh losslessidcconform or die
>>108983053nofuck webpshit always forces me to convert it to png. pain in the ass. just use png. I don't give a fuck if it uses slightly more data to store fuck you if you want to save space use jpg don't use fucking webp fuck you I hate everyone that uses webp
>>108983053>compress Anime imagesthat's a retarded metric to use considering that anime images have very low entropy to begin with
>>108985724those are chinks
>>108990057But decode complexity suddenly isn't a problem at all for AVIF, right shill?
>>108983053WebP is great for lossless compression if you don’t need HDR or a couple other rarely-used featuresI can’t be bothered to get a good opinion whether it’s good at lossy compression, though >>108985111I get annoyed because 4chan doesn’t support it as an upload option
>>108990738By that logic JXL is utter garbage if it results in poor compression of low entropy images.>>108990742Look at the date on the calendar you hillbilly.>>108991574It IS a problem but because AVIF and AV1 files are pretty much the same then devices that have HW support for AV1 also have it for AVIF.However one nasty catch is that baseline HW support, AFAIK, will limit AVIF images to a max resolution of 4096x2160.Meanwhile WebP has a max resolution of 16,383 x 16,383 but does not support HDR images like AVIF.AVIF also has terrible lossless compression compared to Webp.So AVIF is a bit of a mixed bag when you look at it objectively. JXL is the bridge between the downsides presented by WebP and AVIF but isn't as universal as Webp, objectively speaking.
>>108983053p
kys retarded ass autistno one is zooming in 300% on their screens to see differences between image formats
also webp is finethe only place that doesn't support it is 4chan
>>108984198png is a lossless format. of course you can manually remove data to make the filesize smaller, still doesn't make the type itself lossy. that's not what those words mean.
>>108991928>I get annoyed because 4chan doesn’t support it as an upload option/threadthe entire reason it was (still is) hated is because us /here/ cant use it since this piece of shit site is still stuck in 2012 with a 4MB upload limit its a god damn miracle it supports webm's and mp4's now (but only halfway since you cant upload one with sound to like 85% of the boards)the fucking upload selector still shows * files instead of files acceptedwebp is fine.in almost everyway it is a superior .png file formatbut we cant USE it so why should i deal with this intermediate step of downloading a jpg/png, converting it to a webp to store on my disk, then reconverting it to png just to share on this kusosite
