Why are we sending someone to “Extra Hell” for making an improved image format that has better compression and is an overall improvement over all 3 of the existing formats it replaces (jpeg, png, gif)?
Shouldn’t this apply to everyone the companies who refused to adopt it, thus breaking every normal image workflow? (Same thing can be said about JXL)
I’d say the knowledge about webp’s benefits is not mainstream at all, I learned about it last week from a random YouTube video. So when people download a file that isn’t working as expected they don’t know who to be mad at so they make memes like this.
Obviously be mad at whoever responded to a request without accept webp in it with a webp or didn’t provide an alternative. Nothing wrong with supporting webp with a fallback
I have comments about your first question, but they’re mostly stupid on my end. I think the problem for most is related to your 2nd question. Google is doing it’s google thing where they do a lot to force adoption with a goal of doing nothing to support it. Combine with a general distrust of Google.
I’m realizing my wording might be vague, by “everyone” I meant the big tech companies that didn’t implement it, like Google, Apple, Microsoft, and Adobe. AFAIK most of the open source apps actually implemented support pretty quickly, and obviously it wouldn’t be the end users’ fault because they can’t change what formats are supported
.png supports pretty extreme compression, while a jpeg can also be lossless. The extensions tell you nothing except which family of algorithms was used to encode/compress/store them.
Webp though, webp is only used for the internet. I mean, you could use it other places, I guess.
You’re an “expert in image processing” but don’t understand the fundamental difference between the .jpg and .png image formats or the encoding and compression algorithms underpinning them? I find that doubtful.
.png only compresses efficiently when used as intended, which is for screenshots or other images with large areas of solid colors, where each pixel is most likely the same color value as its neighbors. In this use case, it’s much more efficient than .jpg. However, .jpg is much more efficient than .png when it’s used as it’s intended; encoding images of the real world, like images taken with a digital camera, where each pixel has a slightly different color value than the ones next to it.
You can test this yourself by taking a picture with your phone’s camera, then copying the image, converting the copy to the other file format, then comparing the file sizes. Next, repeat the process with a screenshot of a web page or a simple Paint drawing. You’ll see that the camera image is smaller as a .jpg but the screenshot is smaller as a .png.
Why are we sending someone to “Extra Hell” for making an improved image format that has better compression and is an overall improvement over all 3 of the existing formats it replaces (jpeg, png, gif)?
Shouldn’t this apply to
everyonethe companies who refused to adopt it, thus breaking every normal image workflow? (Same thing can be said about JXL)Edit: fix vague wording
Because they have a poor user experience with an OS and applications that have chosen not to support it properly, and blame the image format for this
I’d say the knowledge about webp’s benefits is not mainstream at all, I learned about it last week from a random YouTube video. So when people download a file that isn’t working as expected they don’t know who to be mad at so they make memes like this.
Obviously be mad at whoever responded to a request without accept webp in it with a webp or didn’t provide an alternative. Nothing wrong with supporting webp with a fallback
I have comments about your first question, but they’re mostly stupid on my end. I think the problem for most is related to your 2nd question. Google is doing it’s google thing where they do a lot to force adoption with a goal of doing nothing to support it. Combine with a general distrust of Google.
I’m realizing my wording might be vague, by “everyone” I meant the big tech companies that didn’t implement it, like Google, Apple, Microsoft, and Adobe. AFAIK most of the open source apps actually implemented support pretty quickly, and obviously it wouldn’t be the end users’ fault because they can’t change what formats are supported
It’s not an improvement over PNG.
No one uses it and even if they did, you’d never know since there isn’t a .webl or .webpl to differentiate lossless.
You know a PNG in lossless, you know a jpg is lossy. webp should just be assumed lossy 100% of the time.
How to determine if webp is lossless? Old format easy, jpg vs. png.
As an expert in image processing:
.png supports pretty extreme compression, while a jpeg can also be lossless. The extensions tell you nothing except which family of algorithms was used to encode/compress/store them.
Webp though, webp is only used for the internet. I mean, you could use it other places, I guess.
You’re an “expert in image processing” but don’t understand the fundamental difference between the .jpg and .png image formats or the encoding and compression algorithms underpinning them? I find that doubtful.
.png only compresses efficiently when used as intended, which is for screenshots or other images with large areas of solid colors, where each pixel is most likely the same color value as its neighbors. In this use case, it’s much more efficient than .jpg. However, .jpg is much more efficient than .png when it’s used as it’s intended; encoding images of the real world, like images taken with a digital camera, where each pixel has a slightly different color value than the ones next to it.
You can test this yourself by taking a picture with your phone’s camera, then copying the image, converting the copy to the other file format, then comparing the file sizes. Next, repeat the process with a screenshot of a web page or a simple Paint drawing. You’ll see that the camera image is smaller as a .jpg but the screenshot is smaller as a .png.
Nothing the other guy said contradicts this? Nor shows a lack of understanding this?
Yeah they didn’t say anything about efficiency lol, where the hell did all that come from
png also compresses better when you lower the color depth, the number of colors. And you forgot png has alpha which is a big deal IMO.
Is this a very niche copypasta that I’m unaware of?