• flamingo_pinyata@sopuli.xyz
    194·
    14 days ago

    This is MS we’re talking about. Preview and Viewer are probably made by two different teams in different countries, sharing no code, and prohibited from communicating with each other, even if they know about the other’s existence.

    And famously they fired all QAs years ago so there’s nobody to test before releasing.

    • BodilessGaze@sh.itjust.works
      61·
      14 days ago

      I work in big tech and this is my life. I envy anyone who thinks you’re exaggerating, because that means they haven’t experienced the joy of spending weeks trying to track down the team responsible for a bug and then months hassling them to fix it.

      • marcos@lemmy.world
        4·
        13 days ago

        Oh, man.

        I just stopped being hassled to fix a bug on somebody else’s system (that mine interops with), by the same developers responsible for maintaining that other system, because the problem got bad enough to escalate until somebody responsible for both sides looked.

        That said, I was just ignoring them. But hell…

    • sga@lemmings.worldEnglish
      10·
      14 days ago

      I can almost guarantee that they would be using different things. usually you have simpler libraries to decode formats (almost 1 for each codec), and separate programs plug these libraries in to generate the output. previews do not have to be accurate and have to be fast, so a simpler program with just linear scaling or something, where as actual image would be complex which has to worry about accuracy.

      still not a excuse to not have support for a free 15 year old format

      • Crozekiel@lemmy.zip
        2·
        13 days ago

        I think way more of windows 11 is just edge in a trenchcoat than anyone wants to admit…

        Can’t get away from it at work and i hate it. All we need computers for at work is web access and file sharing, but they still won’t budge from daddy Microsoft.

        • Blackmist@feddit.ukEnglish
          2·
          13 days ago

          I wouldn’t mind if all those Electron apps could use it to save space, but no. Everything still comes with 600MB of Chromium bolted to it like a tumour.

    • MisterFrog@lemmy.world
      1·
      12 days ago

      And famously they fired all QAs years ago so there’s nobody to test before releasing.

      It all makes sense now.

      There’s no QA to bonk people on the head.

      Who the fuck’s idea was Outlook (New)? Like half the features don’t exist. And some of the actually useful new features simply don’t work (looking at you," pop-out" reading pane view option. Where’s my popped out reading pane Microsoft??? Did ya forget to test it? Turns out, yes)

  • Sonotsugipaa@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
    792·
    14 days ago

    Webp is the worst format ever.

    Never mind that:

    • it supports transparency;
    • it can be losslessly OR lossfully compressed;
    • it’s so efficient it can fit ẏ̷̛̀̏̎̇͜ǫ̷̼̰̳̹́̆̍̐͜͝ủ̷͉̱̻̤̬̯̈́ŗ̸̒ ̸̨̟͈̳͍̱̀̏̓m̵̺͎̋́u̴͇̥͍͐̇̀̇͊̌̚͝m̸̢̢͕̻̬͙̒͗̽͋͆̕͝ in less than 2GB;
    • it can be animated;
    • is more than capable of representing 1:1 any GIF image;

    it sucks because the one image viewer I’ve ever had installed by the ubiquitous (= monopolistic) operating system everyone has by default doesn’t support it.

    • sga@lemmings.worldEnglish
      221·
      14 days ago

      avif is better than it in almost all ways, and jpex xl is even better than that (but not about gifs i think)

      webp is essentially a webm file (which is mkv with codec restrictions(vp8/9 and ogg vorbis or opus))

      avif is av1 encoded files in a webp like container (but not webm afaik)

      jpeg xl is a format made specifically for images

        • sga@lemmings.worldEnglish
          7·
          14 days ago

          what would they be?

          do you mean in sense of lossy or lossless? if so, in theory both webp and avif could have lossless photos, but i do not think they are designed for that (think in terms of their backrounds, they are kinda like a single frame videos. and usually you only have lossy video).

          jpeg xl in theory aims to take job of both jpeg and png (it can handle lossy as well as lossless). In theory, we (as in all of computing and media people) decide to back on jpegxl, we could potentially just have 1 format, and accordingly 1 library which provides support. but that is just a dream i do not see happening. google essentially paralysed jpeg xl by removing it from chromium , and that is the largest userbase.

          almost all other big companies want to use jpeg xl. meta, adobe, intel and others. the main benefit to them is reduced bandwidth cost (for exactly same data, jpeg xl can be ~20% smaller than jpeg), and jpeg can be losslessly translated to jxl, and even for backwards compatibility, reverse can be done on client end. but without chrome, no web developer will adopt. if web people do not, the demand for format would be extremely small, no hardware manufacturer will include hardware support (your gpus have “special” stuff for almot all codecs and formats, but that is not the case for jxl for now), so jxl operations currently are slow, so end user might not even be motivated to use (other than space savings).

          https://jpegxl.info/

            • sga@lemmings.worldEnglish
              5·
              14 days ago

              okay. it is a lot simplified, but mostly correct. ideally image format for drawn out stuff and other flat animated stuff is svg (vector graphics - ie - infinitely scalable yet crisp), but png is usually used because it is defacto lossless standrad. lossless here roughly translates to - sensor produced a matrix of colors - lossless photo preserves all data. lossy discards some data. For irl stuff, usually lossless is overkill for end user, hence you see jpegs (defacto lossy standrad)

              jxl can so both. others can do that as well. jpegs can be lossless, but that is usually not the standard we use. you can store lossy data in pngs, but the loss is not created by png. jxl behaves by default like lossless (like png), but due to newer algorithms, size when lossless is closer to jpeg. if you prepare loss jxl - it can be close to half size of jpegs.

              there are other benifits to jxl (extreme future proofing (extremely high bit depth, and pixel size limit, large amount of channels), progressive decoding, etc.), but our reality has to suck because of google.

              I locally use jxl to store family photos, but this means i can not send them, because they are using stuff which does not support jxl, so have to convert and share.

        • AdrianTheFrog@lemmy.worldEnglish
          6·
          14 days ago

          IMO AVIF works really well at making convincing looking results at really high compression ratios, it’s worse at pretty much everything else.

          And occasionally the ‘convincing looking’ results aren’t actually very accurate to the original image…

          But those results really do look very convincing.

          And IMO one of the most compelling features of JPEG-XL is its’ great lossless compression, although it is generally good all-around. AVIF is pretty terrible at lossless compression, usually well-behind WebP and only a bit better than PNG.

          Anyways, for photos, if you want to compress them a ton then maybe AVIF is best, but if you want high quality JXL is probably best.

          I think https://cloudinary.com/blog/jpeg-xl-and-the-pareto-front is a good comparison

      • Nonononoki@lemmy.world
        2·
        13 days ago

        AV1 is only supported by new devices, most support VP9. For example, the iPad Air 2024 does not support AV1.

        • sga@lemmings.worldEnglish
          1·
          13 days ago

          yes, but that is a bit apple specific, and on intel side, they support hwdec since 2021. and since these are just images, even software decoding works (although a bit slower)

          • Nonononoki@lemmy.world
            2·
            13 days ago

            I’d say 2021 is still pretty damn recent, most of my computing devices are still pre 2020. It’s also not just Apple, for example the latest Fairphone 6 doesn’t support it either. Images can still be pretty damn big when taken from a high resolution camera, and software decoding defeats the benefit from a format that’s supposed to be efficient. I’d say that it will probably take another decade for avif to become mainstream.

        • sga@lemmings.worldEnglish
          4·
          13 days ago

          svg is great, but at vector graphics. we are mostly discussing raster formats.

    • FackCurs@lemmy.world
      3·
      13 days ago

      I just converted all the images on my website to webp for faster load time. Very happy with it.

      • Trainguyrom@reddthat.comEnglish
        2·
        13 days ago

        I was farting around with renpy and grabbed some free assets since I wasn’t making anything important, and I noticed that each image was a full megabyte, so I converted them to webp and reduced the entire project from 20mb down to just a few megs (I don’t remember specifically but I remember it was a significant reduction)

    • adarza@lemmy.caEnglish
      41·
      14 days ago

      and with very few exceptions i’ve run across, it’s also (intentionally or not) configured to produce shit-tier quality output by pretty much everyone implementing it at any sort of scale.

  • grue@lemmy.world
    531·
    14 days ago

    Is this a Windows problem I’m too Linux to understand?

    Seriously, everything on my computer – Firefox, Dolphin, Gwenview, GIMP, etc. – supports webp just fine.

  • WolfLink@sh.itjust.works
    271·
    13 days ago

    Media viewer and the file browser are completely different programs with different support for media file types.

    Not that this is an excuse for Media Viewer to not open webp files. Also asking you to pay for h265 support is extra ridiculous.

    I just use VLC for everything.

    • Owl@mander.xyz
      20·
      13 days ago

      They are made by the same company and sold as a unified software package under the name Windows 11 [edition]

  • Warl0k3@lemmy.world
    25·
    13 days ago

    I loathe windows, but I did just double check because this sounds inept even for M$ – Win photos will absolutely open .webp, but it’s not the default program for whatever reason and it just defaults to edge / your_default_web_browser_here. Which is just impressively on brand for microsoft. Even when they have a feature they hide it to, idk, make themselves look even worse? Why not!

    proof

    (FWIW this is a clean install, I do not have any non-default codecs installed)

  • ZkhqrD5o@lemmy.world
    161·
    13 days ago

    I didn’t have time to check all the comments, so here’s a backup:

    Just install GNU/Linux

    ;)

  • PieMePlenty@lemmy.world
    14·
    14 days ago

    Time to screenshot the preview and stretch out the jpeg. Upload it when the time calls, only for the web server to re-encode it in webp. The cycle continues.

  • pHr34kY@lemmy.world
    7·
    13 days ago

    I was trying to write something that would save an AVIF image this week. Holy shit the ecosystem is bad. I had to encode the image and write the exif tags with two different libraries. The latter being a CLI program and not a library. The WEBP situation is even worse.

    We are never getting away from JPEG.

  • shantismurf@lemmy.world
    72·
    13 days ago

    I know a bunch about computers and that doesn’t add up to me either!! I hate the webp format.

    • OboTheHobo@ttrpg.network
      4·
      13 days ago

      Webp is honestly a really good format for what its made to do. That being said, windows support for it is lacking for some reason. I don’t know why as it’s been common for a long time now.

      Also, you can always use ffmpeg to convert to png or jpg or whatever you want. Simple file conversions like that are super easy.

        • OboTheHobo@ttrpg.network
          1·
          13 days ago

          I’m not familiar, but it does look useful. Seems to combine the best of both png and jpg, with the power of jpg’s compression with the option of lossless compression + support for transparency or whatever else you might want to have a channel for

          • daggermoon@lemmy.world
            1·
            13 days ago

            It’s fucking awesome. I can losslessly convert a .jpg to a .jxl and back to a .jpg. The only problem is support in browsers and other software. .webp and .avif are fine for the most part but they seem to get all of the attention and support when .jxl is better in most ways and is a future proofed format.

      • tiramichu@sh.itjust.works
        3·
        13 days ago

        It doesn’t necessarily.

        Webp is just a file format like jpg, or png or anything else. You can implement support for it in a native app just the same as any other format.

        What certainly IS true is that browsers supported it first (because distributing media on the web is what it was designed for as a format) and a lot of native image viewer apps are still lagging behind on their support.