Everybody hates webP.
>>109237627I don't, I prefer webp when I build websites
>>109237627not me,lossless webp is fucking great and I compressed all my art assets from png to webp.
>>109237627noits a good format
nah he's rightvideos were never meant to go inside of <img> tags
>>109237635>>109237637>>109237638kys webpathetic shills
>>109237627Is this "everybody" in the room with you right now?
>>109237638Then how come no one uses it?
The format no one wanted or asked for. And, no, developers DON'T count as people.
>>109237832i use it all the time
>>109237846To convert into a jpg?
i hate myself
warning: this thread will be astroturfed by corporate shills. the only purpose of webp is to save a penny on server costs. it is the objective worst format for image integrity.
>>109237627I only hate it because 4chan doesn't use it. And most of my image saving is reaction related.Can I get a tl;dr on why I should or shouldn't hate it?
theres something wrong having webm image data with webm magick number but file named jpeg
>>109237844>developers DON'T count as peopleweb developers aren't even real developers, let alone count as people. webp is a web developers format, everyone that want more from an image than just viewing it hates webp, and hates everyone that uses it
>>1092376274chan doesn't support webp and thunar doesn't display webp thumbnails and for some reason, the extension to convert to jpg/png breaks when i'm saving a webp from a wiki
>nooo, you can't save my copyrighted photos
>>109237782No, outside, in the real world, unlike you, you fat faggot.
>>109237627I hated webp until I learned about its lossless mode from using stable diffusion. Exif info, smaller size, no quality loss. Now I hate the way it's used, to bulk convert website photos into shitty small sizes to lower site bandwidth with no regard for maintaining quality. The format is fine, the conversion tools being deployed just have terrible defaults.
>>109243104Well now that's interesting, I have around 50 GB of generated images. How big are the savings?
>>109237782I am, yes. AMA
>>109243253about a 30% reduction
>>109243104This. WEBP lossless is really good. As in unironically the best lossless format right now.AVIF supports lossless, but it's so bad I don't even know what the fuck they were thinking. It's a lot bigger than WEBP. Completely useless.JXL also supports lossless, but it's at best on par with WEBP, sometimes worse, but in all cases, it takes ages to encode compared to WEBP, so there's basically no reason not to use WEBP lossless instead.The lossy format is pretty shit but it can be better than jpeg when it's encoded properly. It almost never is.
>>109237627I currently use JPG because it doesn't make my images look like a photoshop oil paintings. I will be switching to JXL after it becomes supported on firefox-esr.
