Why do people hate this again?

>supported by major vendors 2020-onward since the release of libwebp in 2018
>better compression ratios
>replaces GIF, JPEG, and PNG - very old formats in current year

The format and its technology deserves better recognition for what's been achieved.
Even before widespread support was implemented, Google even distributed plugins for a variety of software platforms.
>GIMP
>Photoshop
>Safari
>Firefox
etc.

I would think data hoarders and those with constrained data rates/caps would be most appreciative of what WebP offers.

What gives?

  1. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    Because LULZ doesn't support it so it makes posting images I saved from searches a pain in the ass

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      That is indeed true. I wonder why that is?
      After all, this site supports WebM with VP8/9 + Vorbis/Opus, so it doesn't make much sense why they're holding out on that.

      Because it's used by webdev naggercattle to shit up existing images with more compression instead of being used on new images.

      >implying this already doesn't happen with preexisting lossy image formats

      Why do inept people keep relying on this practice as a valid argument?
      Who gets out of bed and says
      >i am going to reprocess a lossy format recursively by n times just because
      >wTf WhY DiD iT gEt WoRsE?!?!¿¡¿¡

      This is a meaningless comparison because re-compression should be avoided anyway.

      >lossy re-compression should be avoided
      ftfy
      Lossless is supported by WebP, and as mentioned in the OP, has better ratios than PNG.

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        >silly thing n times
        I did it for kicks one time.

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      That is indeed true. I wonder why that is?
      After all, this site supports WebM with VP8/9 + Vorbis/Opus, so it doesn't make much sense why they're holding out on that.
      [...]
      >implying this already doesn't happen with preexisting lossy image formats
      [...]
      Why do inept people keep relying on this practice as a valid argument?
      Who gets out of bed and says
      >i am going to reprocess a lossy format recursively by n times just because
      >wTf WhY DiD iT gEt WoRsE?!?!¿¡¿¡
      [...]
      >lossy re-compression should be avoided
      ftfy
      Lossless is supported by WebP, and as mentioned in the OP, has better ratios than PNG.

      The LULZ server side file handling code is probably Yanderedev style spaghetti, so that's probably the reason we'll never get new file formats.

  2. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    Unsupported in a variety of sites and software. I never got that mad at a fucking file type.

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      This is it, really. If it was as supported as jpg I don't think anyone would care much

  3. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    Because it's used by webdev naggercattle to shit up existing images with more compression instead of being used on new images.

  4. 1 week ago
    Anonymous
    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      This is a meaningless comparison because re-compression should be avoided anyway.

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        https://i.imgur.com/YcTLKcy.png

        >supported by major vendors 2020-onward since the release of libwebp in 2018
        >better compression ratios
        >replaces GIF, JPEG, and PNG - very old formats in current year

        The format and its technology deserves better recognition for what's been achieved.
        Even before widespread support was implemented, Google even distributed plugins for a variety of software platforms.
        >GIMP
        >Photoshop
        >Safari
        >Firefox
        etc.

        I would think data hoarders and those with constrained data rates/caps would be most appreciative of what WebP offers.

        What gives?

        That is indeed true. I wonder why that is?
        After all, this site supports WebM with VP8/9 + Vorbis/Opus, so it doesn't make much sense why they're holding out on that.
        [...]
        >implying this already doesn't happen with preexisting lossy image formats
        [...]
        Why do inept people keep relying on this practice as a valid argument?
        Who gets out of bed and says
        >i am going to reprocess a lossy format recursively by n times just because
        >wTf WhY DiD iT gEt WoRsE?!?!¿¡¿¡
        [...]
        >lossy re-compression should be avoided
        ftfy
        Lossless is supported by WebP, and as mentioned in the OP, has better ratios than PNG.

        >Lossless is supported by WebP
        >nobody uses it
        thanks for playing: "i am a google prostitute that loves guzzling AIDS infect semen". your prize: AIDS.

        • 1 week ago
          Anonymous

          Why is generation loss even an issue? It's guaranteed to produce trash no matter what algorithm you use. Maybe we should just switch to lossless formats.

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            Are you new to the internet?

            • 1 week ago
              Anonymous

              The deep fried images aren't going away until lossy image formats become inaccessible to normalhomosexuals.

        • 1 week ago
          Anonymous

          This image is caused by a bug in the webp encoder which was fixed many years ago. Every thread the image has appeared in has had someone explaining that it's out-of-date and meaningless.
          Why are you still posting it?

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      Ok OP, I'll bite since you resist to inform yourself.
      >only recently hit full adoption on all browsers
      >lossy is based off VP8
      >it's on par if not worse than mozjpeg/jpegli
      >only 4:2:0 chroma subsampling
      >cwebp's RGB->YUV conversion is ass, sharpyuv is a bandaid
      >horrible generation loss resistance
      see

      [...]
      [...]
      >Lossless is supported by WebP
      >nobody uses it
      thanks for playing: "i am a google prostitute that loves guzzling AIDS infect semen". your prize: AIDS.

      >lossless is only slightly better than PNG on average
      >but only 8-bit
      >animation tooling is dogshit, only usable via ffmpeg
      >max res is only 16383 x 16383
      >lossy is often worse than lossless for flat graphics because lossless is an entirely different encoder, that's how shit VP8 is
      >no progressive decoding
      >no hardware decoding implementation
      Am I forgetting anything

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        >only recently hit full adoption on all browsers
        No longer an issue, since it's fully supported now.
        >lossless is only slightly better than PNG on average
        It's closer to JXL than PNG in terms of efficiency. It's really good.
        >animation tooling is dogshit, only usable via ffmpeg
        You could say the same about APNG. webpmux is okay enough and the ffmpeg interface is decent as well. It does lack some authoring tools that GIF has, but people seldom use these when animating stuff anyway.
        >no hardware decoding implementation
        I don't know of any implementation of hardware-accelerated image decoding in use in a major desktop or smartphone application. Not an issue.

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        is often worse than lossless for flat graphics because lossless is an entirely different encoder
        >Am I forgetting anything
        >

  5. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    it tries to do everything at once
    jpg and png are comfy
    gif sucks but there's webm for that

  6. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    >plugins
    >google
    >needful new format that no one asked for or needed

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      tell that to the 4K UHD crowd since they want the bloat that's imposing new compression formats every few years.

  7. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    They don't know how to make it show thumbnails in their file manager.

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      There's XnView MP for that.

  8. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    I wouldn't have thought people feel this strongly about image formats

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *