What is your honest opinion of WebP? Not facebook boomer meme "it's le evil!!!!" but your serious opinion about it? I have also asked the 4chan leadership if support is nearing completion btw.https://x.com/GrapeApe9k/status/2104004858743542198
its shit/fpbp/thread
>>109917566Which one exactly? There's:Webp losslessWebp lossyWebp animated lossyWebp animated lossless
>>109917566You're confusing JXL with WebP. Very easy mistake to make.
>>109917553Even if they knew how to implement webp support they wouldn't, out of spite.
>>109917669just add .webp to the allowed list lol
>>109917669ads on this site use webp
>>109917553it's the new AI containment board
>>109917553why would anyone care about my opinion
Who the fuck is going to "bleed to other altchans" over webp?
webp in isolation is fine as far as formats gowebp as it as implemented is cursedserving jpegs transcoded to webpserving webp with the wrong file extensionalso lossless should have a unique file extension (who am I kidding nobody ever uses webp lossless)
>>109917795>hear about an altchan>"omg bro it's so much better than 4chan it's so kino!">visit it>it gets 1 post an hour
>>109917553I don't understand why rapeape uses xitter to communicate things about the website he runs instead of literally using the website he runs to communicate things
>>109917687Keking hard if true.
>>109917837https://4chan.org/advertiseyou can see the formats
>>109917825Stop noticing. Do these people even use #4chan on Rizon anymore?
>>109917553Fuck off jeff
>>109917795>>109917808Like or not, WebP is getting more popular so users are going to come across it and try to upload it here. Some of them will grudgingly fire up mspaint or whatever but some are just going to look for places that allow WebP uploads instead.>>109917847My name Jeff. It's actually David but I like how "Jeff" sounds.
>>109917871>some are just going to look for places that allow WebP uploads insteadi doubt it. they specifically came here to share something with their anon frens not to upload something randomly for no reason to show no one on some random alt site.
>>109917796No, I've seen it being used in the wild now especially for graphics. But this problem isn't unique to WebP btw, JXL and AVIF both suffer from this.I think the mentally that if a file is PNG = lossless is kinda stupid btw, websites use pngquant all the time and retard users will convert JPG to PNG with impunity.
>>109917888I use 4chan xt and the 100kb webp images I find online are automatically converted into 3mb png, so thats cool
Needed on 4chan along with AV1 and soon JXL
>>109917887It'll get quite annoying for them as WebP usage goes up. Not enough to cause all users to leave obviously but many are going to just leave when they realize how outdated this place is.>>109917893JXL can wait tbqh, see >>109917647
>>109917893>jxlisnt avif best hdr formatcan we get that
>>109917899It sucks at lossless but then again you can argue for lossless being a meme on the web.
>>109917906I wish I could capture avif hdr screenshots in games and such and post them online without some conversion tool that makes the image look different.
why are internet companies so concerned about saving a few kb from images but allow terabytes of ai video slop to be uploaded per hour
>>109917888saving a jpg as png incurs a massive filesize penalty so its heavily discouragedhaving a very visible distinction between lossy and lossless formats is still useful even if people use it incorrectly sometimes
>>109917553should be enabled along with whatever the ios users have been complaining about the last decadewhenever they want the fixed php 8.2 version with postgres and redis and grafana and actual antispam that works they know where it is
>>109917566This, just fuck off already. It's absolutely unnecessary, at best.
Blackrock Approved
>>109917553Weakest of the new-gen image formats, but I just wish all sites implemented support for at least one. In an ideal world we'd all be able to post lossless PNGs, but I understand that it's impossible to turn a profit if any user can post 5MB images, so just pick anything, literally anything is an improvement over JPEG
>>109917825There's even a news section that has been basically nothing except anniversary drawings for a few years
>>109917871WebP is better than JPG and better than PNG for real images (not indexed colors slop).
>>109917553My honest opinion is that ita) is pushed by Google when there are better formatsb) is abused by websites force-reencoding your shit to compress itc) makes it impossible to distinguish lossy from lossless images at a glance; are you saving the full sized image of that diagram or a compressed one? who knows, unless you wanna zoom in and carefully visually check!d) is basically at best a decent thumbnail format, but worthless as an actual image storage formatMy images folder is not a corporate bandwidth-optimised pinterest gallery so I have no use for either saving or posting webp.I am convinced everyone pushing for webp adoption is some kind of google shill because I see no other reason to genuinely want it.
>>109917987He should hire me. I could literally use my marketing skills to retain users, provide features that you want, increase board quality using industry standard metrics and without violating privacy (there are frameworks for that), solve the proxy problem, implement AI automated moderation and hand him a ready to use software package deliverable with complete feature parity to his existing solution.His competence is questionable, or he is hung up by Hiroyuki, to not agree to this.
>>109917871>picAlmost every single webp I've encountered in the wild has been some automatically encoded one. It's not getting "more popular" with users, it's just being adopted more by big tech platforms.>some are just going to look for places that allow WebP uploads instead.Nobody picks the website they use by the image format allowed lmao>>109917796>serving webp with the wrong file extensionAlso this, I forgot to mention it. It's always been possible of course but for some reason, it's only with the advent of webp specifically that websites have decided it's somehow okay to serve "example.com/image.png" as a webp.
>>109917995By chance did you notice that I stole your recommendations system?
>>109917553>>109917669for context:>https://goyimx.com/GrapeApe9k/status/1967823045755830547> I will be deep in the cold, cold ground before I recognize .webp
>>109917795most of the image/video format support begging is done by one guy
>>109918074Depends what image/video format you're talking about.
>>109917995>a) is pushed by Google when there are better formatsDepends what you mean by "better". We all know JXL is the best at compression in general but it's not the best at decoding well. Althought that honor belongs to JPG, WebP comes in 2nd place while on average being better than JPG in general.>b) is abused by websites force-reencoding your shit to compress itSame problem will happen with JXL because even though they could theoretically shave off 20-30% off using lossless JPG compression they'll opt for 90% reduction going from lossy JPG to lossy JXL.>c) makes it impossible to distinguish lossy from lossless images at a glance; are you saving the full sized image of that diagram or a compressed one? who knows, unless you wanna zoom in and carefully visually check!You have to do this with PNG as well, extension guarantees nothing in the real world.>d) is basically at best a decent thumbnail format, but worthless as an actual image storage formatThat's a very subjective take, image quality metrics say otherwise. >My images folder is not a corporate bandwidth-optimised pinterest gallery so I have no use for either saving or posting webp.Why not just go back to BMP then? Stick it to the man anon!>I am convinced everyone pushing for webp adoption is some kind of google shill because I see no other reason to genuinely want it.Say google is egging websites to adopt WebP for their gain, what would that be? Because AFAIK WebP is an open source image codec that costs $0 to use (ie royalty free).Also did you know that Google is behind JXL? Does that mean that we should treat JXL as garbage as well just because google made it? What about WebM?>Compared to the reference JPEG; WebP’s median file size reduction was 31,5%, the 85th percentile was 20%, and 2,7% of the images were larger.https://www.ctrl.blog/entry/webp-avif-comparison/
>>109917795No one. But people are going to altchans because they support sound on all boards, they support bigger file size, etc
the p stands for poop, and it is therefore an indian format
>>109918205No, it stands for pee.>>109918198Worth mentioning that the ones that support WebP will also probably add support for JXL especially as chrome/firefox add support for it this October, assuming there's not another fucking delay.If you don't give a shit about poor people struggling to decode JXL images then going from PNG to JXL or JPG to JXL would pretty much reduce image file sizes by 50% on average.
