Kill yourself

Webp is like the dei score of file formats. Google actively punishes your website ranking if you don't use it.

>>449682
From 13MB to 0.6MB
Tell me it is not ridiculously efficient and great.

>>449555
I exclusively save all my pictures as a one static frame in webm

>>449555
>attached picture is a .png

>>449684
that's because it's great. favouring pretty much an 85% or more compression ratio is Not something you should be complaining about

>>449555
AV1 avif > webp

>>449976
go kys you corpcuck

>>449939
4chin shud add WEBP support

>>449555
>not jxl
No thanks

>>450442
i love compressing images. as a web developer you should kill yourself

>>449555
I love nothing more than having to take screenshots because WEBP cannot be opened in the classic Windows image viewer and instead either forced to load up Firefox or the Photos app that has a memory leak where if you keep it up on the second monitor as a reference it starts eating up like 10GB.

>>451682
you can open webp with ms paint

>>451940
Microsoft's support of webp is an inconsistent mess.

>>449555
WEBP developer spotted opinion noted and rejected

>>451682
you can get a browser extension that lets you save .webp as .png or .jpg

>>449555
bumping this shit thread to not let it die.

>>453402
how judicious of you!

>>449555
gaygle shill thread

low tier lossy format bullshit. i want my images viewed at the highest resolution in the largest size.

Kills me that it doesn't support transparency.

>>449555
Kys

>>449555
But what is the point if webp can be both lossy and lossless? if I see a png or jpg I immediately know what I'm getting with a webp it's a crapshoot

>>450212
avif and jxl are way fucking worse than webp for losslessly saving real-world images. the last time i tried, the lossless webp version of a processed image from my dslr was around 10mb but the jxl version was nearing 100mb, cant remember what avif got but it was worse than jxl.

for lossy images at low quality, webp tends to block and avif tends to... remove. i'd take webp blocking over avif "smoothening" any day.

webp ftw

>>451682
https://www.irfanview.com/
https://interversehq.com/qview/

>>454361
>what is the point if webp can be both lossy and lossless?

hahaha so in your mind having the consumer see whether it is lossy or lossless compression the only viable goal/explanation for why a file tyoe exists?
>amusing!

>>451682
>imagine unironically using vanilla windows tools

>>454372
Gay

Kys

>>454404
you hate webpfags because we tell the truth

>>454407
Kys contrarian retard

>>454420
not sure you are targeting the correct one of you two with that accusation