WebP thread
Images are sometimes not shown due to bandwidth/network limitations. Refreshing the page usually helps.
You are currently reading a thread in /g/ - Technology
You are currently reading a thread in /g/ - Technology
Why hasn't 4chan adopted WebP yet?
It seems like a very good image format now widely support by almost all browsers. It supports lossy encoding, transparency, animation, and even lossless encoding. Why would 4chan NOT adopt this image format?
Are there fees that I don't know about that 4chan must pay to WebP creators or something that I don't know about?
Because hiroyuki is fucking clueless
Fuck off shill
>>54949411
Isn't webp free?
Because moot works at Google now. This site lost it's sparkle a while ago but you just come here out of habit still.
>>54949435
Any hope it will eventually get adopted? It has a ton of support unlike special snowflake memes like flif.
>>54949405
>Because hiroyuki is fucking clueless
Out of all the shit that could have happened when someone took over 4chan, an Hiro has done a damn fine job.
Anyone else would have added facebook share buttons, popup video ads, emoji support and respect guidelines.
Thank you, based Hiroyuki, for not fucking anything up.
Basic WebP script for anyone interested. Haven't looked at the parameters too much so these will encode with default settings.for %%f IN (*.jpg) do (
cwebp "%%~nf.jpg" -o "%%~nf.webp"
)
Must have cwebp encoder found in: https://developers.google.com/speed/webp/docs/precompiled#getting_cwebp_dwebp_and_the_webp_libraries
>inb4 "hurrr butt net durrrr"
>>54949533
Of course it only converts JPG files and only works on Winblows. If any anons could help me make the script convert JPG, PNG, and GIF files then that would be greatly appreciated.
>>54949435
>Because moot works at Google now
but... that's why we adopted webms, because it was developed by them, why not webp?
AND WHY NO WEBMS WITH SOUND ON /MU/ GOD FUCKING DAMN IT
>>54949533
Why are you on /g/ if you don't know how to use imagemagick?
>>54949585
>AND WHY NO WEBMS WITH SOUND ON /MU/ GOD FUCKING DAMN IT
this is a very good idea
in fact it's such a good idea it should be obvious, why can't people just upload sound files to /mu/?
>>54949698
Because I want to make sure I'm using the latest WebP encoder with as much fine control as possible anon-kun.
>>54949381
>almost all browsers
Only Chrome and Opera
http://caniuse.com/#search=webp
>>54949714
Too many DCMAs to deal with.
>>54949724sudo dnf distro-sync
>>54949714
There's copyright infringement for one
you can't just pass off an entire music video as fair use.
>>54949730
Pale Meme supports it.
>adopting a format developed by Google
Fuck off.
>>54949730
Sorry let me correct that.
*almost all RELEVANT browsers.
>>54949734
people can already upload music on /wsg/ and /gif/ and there's no problems
maybe its true the average crowd at /mu/ is slightly stupider/younger but I doubt much would change
>>54949743
>copyright infringement
thinking about this now, it wouldn't even be a problem on /mu/ due to the temporary nature of the board, especially because /mu/ is pretty quick, whatever infringing content there is will be gone by the next day when 4chan LLC reads their email
>>54949761
4chin uses VP8 in Webm you dumbass, which was developed by google.
Both VP8 and WebP (which uses VP8 stuff) are FREE TO USE.
>>54949778
Content on every board but /b/ gets archived for another 7 days , and /mu/ isn't actually that fast compared to /a/ or /pol/. Also we did have sound threads before I am told, but they were taken away for reasons we are discussing.
>>54949790
But are they FREE FROM BOTNET?
>>54949533
I'm not wasting my life to get a better optimised image. Hard drive space is big anyway.
>>54949816
Pretty much, you can literally check the source code if you're worried.
>use Firefox with a generic Chrome user agent
>Ebay suddenly decides to serve me all images as webp which my browser doesn't support
ayy
>>54949925
>ebay serves webp images
I've been browsing ebay on chrome and I never knew this. Wow.
>>54949517
Hiro has added malware ads. He's not stupid enough to add social media to a site that he knows would just leave or block it if he did.
He does shit in the background where users dont notice.
Also, he is pretty clueless and has to have the mods do everything for him.
What he DOES do right is respect board/site culture and wont listen to shitheads on /qa/ asking for more bullshit rules.
>>54949381
Firefox won't webp.
Therefore 4chin won't webp.
Now shut up and go bother Mozilla.
>>54950153
>Firefox won't webp.
Fuck firecux. Opera and Chrome already support transparent Webp (at least for desktop) and they cover like 90% of all internet users.
>>54950182
You could just leave out Opera it's not statistically significant
>>54950182
>90%
[citation needed]
Does anyone know if there is a way to maximize compression efficiency in WebP like there is in VP8's-qualityparameter?
I'd like to create a WebP with the smallest file size possible.
>-m int
>Specify the compression method to use. This parameter controls the trade off between encoding speed and the compressed file size and quality. Possible values range from 0 to 6. Default value is 4. When higher values are used, the encoder will spend more time inspecting additional encoding possibilities and decide on the quality gain. Lower value can result in faster processing time at the expense of larger file size and lower compression quality.
Nevermind, I found it.
Okay gonna a PNG to WebP comparison now.
PNG related was saved at level 9 compression in Gimp.
>>54950182
Fuck you! Everybody uses Firefox in 4chunz.
>>54951752
This lossless WebP was save with the parameters-lossless -m 6
File size: 322KB
File size reduction over original PNG: 1.58X
https://my.mixtape.moe/afwhkq.webp
>>54949381
Why don't you just email Hiro/the dev? It's not like they read every board 24/7
>>54951846
I have. Still waiting on a response.
>>54951752
This lossless WebP was save with the parameters-q 75 -m 6
File size: 48KB
File size reduction over original PNG: 10.6X
https://my.mixtape.moe/yibaha.webp
>>54951832
No they don't. Especially after it was found out firefox has been infected with SJW and landwhale feminists.
what kind of compression webp uses?
>why hasnt 4chan adopted vp9,apng,mp4,webp,svg etc yet
Cuz its a pita to have a gorillion standards supported
>>54952006
it's based on VP8's i-frame coding
>>54952006
>what kind of compression webp uses?
>Lossy WebP compression uses predictive coding to encode an image, the same method used by the VP8 video codec to compress keyframes in videos. Predictive coding uses the values in neighboring blocks of pixels to predict the values in a block, and then encodes only the difference.
>Lossless WebP compression uses already seen image fragments in order to exactly reconstruct new pixels. It can also use a local palette if no interesting match is found.
https://developers.google.com/speed/webp/
>>54952017
then drop the old ones
webp lossless is better than png
webp lossy is better than jpeg
webp can do animations ala gif
we have webm, but only the older VP8 codec is allowed
>>54951752
This lossy WebP was save with the parameters-q 50-m 6
File size: 38KB
File size reduction over original PNG: 13.4X
https://my.mixtape.moe/lpyero.webp
>>54952061
This. WebP can easily replace all image formats.
>>54949381
>widely support by almost all browsers
http://caniuse.com/#feat=webp
>>54949381
BECAUSE WE LOST THAT ONE GUY
WHAT THE FUCK WAS HIS NAME?
NEWT? I THINK
>>54952083
Most people use chrome and most firefox users are migrating to chrome now that it's become infested with SJWs.
le microsoft thumbnails
>>54952093
palemoon*
>>54949816
yes, dumbass
>>54951988
*lossy
dammit
>>54949381
Marginal benefits over JPEG for lots of complexity
>>54952093
Cherrypicking is the complete opposite of the idea of web standards. I too would love to ditch jpgs for my personal site which has a lot of portfolio photos, but I can't use anything else because only a few browsers support it. Believe me I want webp or whatever new shit there is.
>>54952090
meek
or mope, or something like that, i forget
>>54949925
kek
& firefox still supports apng that nobody else does
rip
>>54952121
You can safely use Webp for your site. Most people use chrome anyways. Even if you get a few firecuck users you can always serve them the shitty bloated JPGs instead like ebay does.
>>54952126
no no you're way fucking off you idiots
it was mewk
>>54952138
Because apng is a joke. Why use that when animated WebP exists?
>>54952149
I still think it defeats the purpose if I have to serve up two variants of everything I want to show.
>>54952158
well, it didn't when apng came out
now I'd only use webm tbqh family
>>54952126
>another thread by that faggot that converts pngs to webms
i know /g/ is filled with low lifers and/or neets but there is got to be a limit for how low one can go
your "quest" will lead nowhere, you can stop the shilling
this shit is cringy af
>>54952138
apng was a meh idea even at the time, especially worthless with webm around
anything small like an animated favicon or button doesn't really need more than 256 colors, just use GIF
anything beyond that is better off in webm
basically, apng is deprecated
but does w3m support webp?
WebP isn't supported widely, and many browser vendors refuse to support it because the benefits are so marginal compared to JPG that breaking compatibility is not worth it.
It's a bit of a chicken-vs-egg problem that plagues standards in general. When we can start talking about order-of-magnitude savings it would be worth reconsidering, but matter of fact is that WebP is only a small incremental gain in efficiency over the existing standards, which can also be had by improving the quality of JPEG encoders.
>>54952175
it was around like 10 years ago though, webm etc wasn't
>>54952191
>WebP isn't supported widely
Like 70% of web users use Chrome which supports WebP, that's a huge fucking chunk of support family.
>but matter of fact is that WebP is only a small incremental gain in efficiency over the existing standards
More like 50%. Modern WebP encoders create the same visual quality of JPG for about half the file size. Serving a 5MB Webp vs 10MB JPG is a huge savings in server bandwidth and loading times on the user side.
>which can also be had by improving the quality of JPEG encoders.
You mean like mozjpeg which nobody fucking supports?
>>54952173
>>54952191
>browser vendors refuse to support it
>breaking compatibility
haha what
they define what is compatible
>savings aren't good enough
m8.
>WebP gives additional 25%-34% compression gains compared to JPEG at equal or slightly better SSIM index.
>When WebP is run with default settings, it compresses 34% better than libpng, and 26% better than pngout.
that isn't significant enough?
>>54952215
i realize that
>>54952256
should probably give a citation for those
https://developers.google.com/speed/webp/docs/webp_lossless_alpha_study
https://developers.google.com/speed/webp/docs/webp_study
>>54952253
Oh look, more of the clueless fucking idiot who after the Nth thread still does not have the intellectual capacity of grasping the difference between an encoder for a format and a format itself.
Keep shilling WebP all you want, I fucking hope it never catches on simply so I don't have to use the garbage associated with this level of idiocy.
>>54949533
>transcoding
>>54952653
Hello bloatgirls.
Okay I did a comparison for JPG and WebP and it turns out JPG is much more shitty than we thought.
The comparison is 5.63MB as a PNG so I could not upload it here on 4chan so pic related is a 2.04MB version scaled down to 50%
This is the comparison full with separate JPG and WebP images and the original PNG used:
http://www.mediafire.com/download/u4t8wbbpcppqmct/TEST_WEBP.7z
>>54953298
>much more shitty than we thought.
>we
>>54953326
>>we
A lot of anons including myself thought that JPG probably looked the same compared to WebP at the same file size. It doesn't, at all.
>>54953338
if it did, there's be little reason to use it
>>54953348
I guess. I'm just shocked at how shit JPG looks compared to WebP, I never did a comparison. That color bleed and blocky artifacting is fucking insane with JPG.
>>54953298
>JPG encoder used: stock GIMP
m8..
>>54953387
in jpeg's defense, it's a fucking old format
>Initial release September 18, 1992; 23 years ago
>>54953431
Got a better one? Preferably not mozjpeg which has problems being decoded in many browsers?
>>54953440
trycjpeg -quant-table 5 -sample 2x2 -optimize -tune-psnr file.png > file.jpg
>>54953440
>Preferably not mozjpeg which has problems being decoded in many browsers?
https://0x0.st/caI.jpg
>>54953470
not that anon, but your post is usless and shitty
>>54953440
>Preferably not mozjpeg which has problems being decoded in many browsers?
Funny you should even say that considering we're in a thread advocating support for a format which has problems being decoded in many browsers
ps. you're confusing mozjpeg with arithmetic coding, as always. They're completely orthogonal
It's significantly easier to add arithmetic coding to a JPG implementation than it is to add support for webp
In fact, libjpeg, libjpeg-turbo, mozjpeg, imagemagick etc. all support arithmetic coding. Firefox, chrome etc. all use libjpeg-turbo. It's just off in their build script. They could literally just support it by changing a single switch in their compile-time settings.
>>54953504
maybe this will help force the point through your thick skull, numbnuts?[07:02][nand@nanodesu:staff_r][/mem]
λ ~/dev/mozjpeg/bin/cjpeg test.png > test.jpg
[07:03][nand@nanodesu:staff_r][/mem]
λ wget https://0x0.st/caI.jpg
--2016-06-07 07:03:47-- https://0x0.st/caI.jpg
Resolving 0x0.st (0x0.st)... 148.251.137.227
Connecting to 0x0.st (0x0.st)|148.251.137.227|:443... connected.
HTTP request sent, awaiting response... 200 OK
Length: 3035 (3.0K) [image/jpeg]
Saving to: ‘caI.jpg’
caI.jpg 100%[=================================================================>] 2.96K --.-KB/s in 0s
2016-06-07 07:03:47 (231 MB/s) - ‘caI.jpg’ saved [3035/3035]
[07:03][nand@nanodesu:staff_r][/mem]
λ diff caI.jpg test.jpg
[07:03][nand@nanodesu:staff_r][/mem]
λ
>>54953521
It looks like shit, somehow worse than the 25KB Webp version. Is mozjpeg really this bad?
>>54950995
See >>54949698
>>54951752
Did you optimize you base image before making those comparisons.
>>54951752
>PNG related was saved at level 9 compression in Gimp.
You really need to update your methodology. Besides, what makes you think GIMP is a good tool for manipulating PNG images?
GIMP is a GNU abomination at best.
>>54953521
my try
>>54949381
because conservatives. the actual kind, not the american kind that embrace change so long as it benefits them and them alone.
>>54953622
i used cjpeg, not mozjpeg
>>54953706
>i used cjpeg, not mozjpeg
Son, it's really time to stop posting on /g/
![25.8 KB [L_25] [6].png](https://i.imgur.com/f26GJzT.png "25.8 KB [L_25] [6].png")
>>54953682
It looks like shit, even when compared to the smaller 25.8KB WebP anon posted.
pic related is webp he converted to a png.
Can someone post a 28KB mozjpeg JPG to compare to >>54953725 ?
>>54953715
huh? he nor i mentioned the use of mozjpeg
>>54953738
*25KB
>>54949381
>It supports lossy encoding
it shouldnt
>>54949517
>ads one new board
>deletes classic /a/ threads
>malware ads
>two new boards
>history of selling out and having users info leaked on other chans.
a majority of hiros stuff has been bad.
No one else would have added facebook intergration, thats just a fantasy you have
we don't need more shitty lossy formats
hope that we never adopt webp here
>>54953767
>>It supports lossy encoding
>it shouldnt
lolwut? WebP is supposed to replace PNG, GIF, and JPG. Why is lossy encoding a bad thing?
>>54953787
Fucking dumbass
see >>54953298
>>54953787
icuck detected
Webm is shitty enough as is. We all know it should have been .mp4 but autists love their shitty file formats
>>54953750
It's clear that you don't have the faintest clue about what mozjpeg, cjpeg etc. actually are and are just blindly stumbling around in the dark here, so let me hopefully clarify somethings for you:
There is a project known as libjpeg which consists of the titular libjpeg (whose API has dominated software that deals with JPG since the the beginnings of JPG itself) as well as a handful of command line tools that have grown in number and complexity over the years.
These tools include cjpeg, djpeg (for encoding and decoding JPEGs using libjpeg) as well as stuff like jpegtran (for lossless jpeg reprocessing) and a handful of others.
Eventually, since libjpeg was pretty slow and the IJG was not accepting patches (or something), people got fed up and made libjpeg-turbo, which was an improved version of libjpeg with better performance and CPU optimizations.
libjpeg-turbo is the dominant standard throughout software today, and it's what I, you, and your mum have on their PCs for decoding and encoding JPEGs. It's what software like GIMP, Firefox, Chrome etc. use. libjpeg-turbo is API-compatible with libjpeg (it's meant to be a drop-in replacement) and provides the same command line tools (cjpeg, djpeg, jpegtran etc.)
mozjpeg is yet another fork of libjpeg-turbo that is itself also an API-compatible drop-in replacement for libjpeg-turbo focusing on improving the algorithms libjpeg uses to compress, while remaining binary compatible with the format.
If a JPEG decodes using libjpeg-turbo, it literally decodes using mozjpeg, and vice versa. Also, mozjpeg is still pretty much the same libjpeg-turbo base, and all of the command line tools (cjpeg, djpeg etc.) are left more or less unchanged.
“i used cjpeg, not mozjpeg” is pretty fucking nonsensical when cjpeg is just the name of the command that all of these various versions of libjpeg provide.
>>54953840
VP8 and H264 are actually pretty close in terms of compression. It's just more difficult to use since it can only be fine tuned in a CLI. With H264 you just set a CRF and preset in handbrake GUI and call it a day.
Anyway VP8 with the WebM container was adopted because it was free to use. I think 4chin had to pay royalties to use H264 in an MP4 container.
>>54953792
I know its meant to replace them, but lossy encoding is never a good thing. Jpeg is a shit format that shouldnt be lived on, same for gif.
>>54953866
the only part of that i wasn't familiar with was mozjpeg, i didn't realize it was based off of libjpeg-turbo and used the same binary names
>>54953866
Finally, since you simply WILL NOT FUCKING SHUT UP about it, the feature you are consistently confusing with “mozjpeg” is known as arithmetic coding, and all of libjpeg, libjpeg-turbo and mozjpeg have all supported it for YEARS. In fact, it's on by default.
Browser vendors just go specifically out of their way to disable arithmetic coding support, for various reasons (probably linked to the fact that they use their own NIH in-tree copies of libjpeg instead of linking against the system versions, for which you can probably thank Microsoft for making Windows such a massive piece of non-POSIX shit).
Finally, mozjpeg itself (or the improvements it makes to libjpeg) has absolutely NOTHING to do with arithmetic coding. Their improvements are focused on other parts of libjpeg. I imagine your confusion comes partly from the fact that people who are trying to optimize JPEGs will generally use both mozjpeg (for improved compression) *and* arithmetic coding (for improved coding efficiency), resulting in a JPEG that will fail to view in some browsers.
But nobody on planet earth is saying you can't use mozjpeg *without* arithmetic coding. Again, they're completely orthogonal
Now get the fuck off /g/ and never talk to me, my husband or my adopted ladyboys ever again
>>54953866
Not him but you seem very knowledgeable and talented in all this, I can barely use FFMpeg. Anyway would you be so kind as to make a 25KB mozjpeg JPG version of >>54951752 ?
We want to compare that mozjpeg JPG to >>54953725
>>54953879
You have no idea what you're talking about.
Literally your entire post is wrong.
>>54953891
Go away bloatgirls rep.
>>54953840
>>54953879
if someone is wondering what a 25.3k x264 version looks like
encoded with;ffmpeg -i a.png -c:v libx264 -preset placebo -tune animation -crf 27.5 a.264
>>54953656
beat you by 78 bytes and my png optimization setup is 3 years out of date at this point
>>54953939
Dam, it looks pretty identical to the 25kB webp.
>>54953999
He was comparing lossy outputs you dumbass.
Are you all that scared to post that 25 KB mozjpeg JPG? Does it look THAT shitty?
>>54954011
Try harder son.
>>54949381
>Why would 4chan NOT adopt this image format?
Because we already have all of that in the already supported image formats.
>>54949381
jpeg is the immortal cockroach from 1992. We'll still be using it in 2026.
VP9 is waay better at this. Why would you ever choose to use VP8?
>>54954042
This.
>>54954037
I can imagine someone saying this about gifs before we adopted webms.
>>54953999
>78 bytes
congratulations considering I literally just ran a single program with default settings on it, let alone a fancy script
Reminder: WebP is shit compared to mozjpeg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L58TCSiX80A
If people really want to get rid of jpg get the android/apple phones to save images as something besides jpg, like tiff or something
>>54954081
more:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w7vXJbLhTyI
>>54954052
Too immature, needs more time to develop. It was release like 4 years ago. It took x264 about 8 years to mature enough to be taken seriously.
>>54954081
Reminder: Cuckzilla and every software it produces will be dead in 10 years. Switch now and save your dignity.
>>54954037
>lets use a clusterfuck of different image formats instead of a single one that does everything all the other ones do while saving space
Why hasn't 4chan adopted MP4 yet?
It seems like a very good video format now widely supported by all browsers (and has been for years now). Why would 4chan NOT adopt this video format?
Are there fees that I don't know about that 4chan must pay to the H.264 consortium or something that I don't know about?
>>54954052
because it takes 24 hours to encode a 2min HD video in vp9.
>>54954078
>applying this much damage control
>>54954081
POST A 25KB MOZJPEG SO WE CAN COMPARE IT TO >>54953725 YOU FUCKING PIECE OF SHIT.
>>54954117
we have gifs, why need anything else?
>>54952158
>Because apng is a joke. Why use that when animated WebP exists?
Because APNG is smaller:
http://littlesvr.ca/apng/gif_apng_webp5.html
You see that animated WebP is even bigger than GIF, that's why nobody's interested.
>>54954112
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YKmhZJ8H1Fc
>>54954150
Fuck off, gifs should have never existed. They were a mistake. x264 video is all that we needed but the creators of GIF had to ruin everything with that shitty format.
>>54954183
gifs became popular before html5 video, dumbass.
>>54949381
how do a make a pseudo webp with webm on linux?
>using images
moronsimport sys
from PIL import Image
import numpy as np
chars = np.asarray(list(' .,:;irsXA253hMHGS#9B&@'))
if len(sys.argv) != 4: print( 'Usage: ./asciinator.py image scale factor' ); sys.exit()
f, SC, GCF, WCF = sys.argv[1], float(sys.argv[2]), float(sys.argv[3]), 7/4
img = Image.open(f)
S = ( round(img.size[0]*SC*WCF), round(img.size[1]*SC) )
img = np.sum( np.asarray( img.resize(S) ), axis=2)
img -= img.min()
img = (1.0 - img/img.max())**GCF*(chars.size-1)
print( "\n".join( ("".join(r) for r in chars[img.astype(int)]) ) )
>>54954000
remember when On2 used to claim that VP7 was just as good as H.264?
it was a bit of a stretch, but VP8 is pretty close
the biggest downside with VP8 compared to H.264 is implementation, libvpx isn't nearly as efficient as x264 (that is, equivalent quality is far slower with libvpx)
>>54952017
>vp9
It should
>apng
shit and deprecated
>mp4
royalties
>webp
it should
>svg
it should
>>54953939
x265 version because why notffmpeg -i a.png -c:v libx265 -preset placebo -crf 25 a.265
>>54954313
>http://littlesvr.ca/apng/gif_apng_webp5.html
http://littlesvr.ca/apng/gif_apng_webp5.html
>>54954377
>>54953939
the .264/.265 files for those interested
they can be opened directly with mpv
https://jii.moe/4J2O2LyVb.264
https://jii.moe/4ynO2UyN-.265
>>54954199
h.264 became popular before html5, dumbass
>>54949381
Because it would just use more power to do the same thing.
It's environmentally unsound and just generally bad practice.
Eats more battery on mobile devices
Steals muh CPU cycles on my desktop.
webm/webp use more resources to decode than jpeg, period.
>>54954581
>his computer can't handle a codec newer than 1992
>>54954581
>waah technology waah
>>54954532
you couldn't play video without flash back then, dumbass.
>>54954647
Do you use iTunes?
>>54954919
Why not?
>>54955013
it offers no functionality i want, and a lot i don't need
what does this have to do with anything?
>>54955040
>and a lot i don't need
So you would say it's bloat?
>webp
>web pee
why would I want that
>>54955153
for me, sure. someone else might consider it just right, though
i think the last time i used itunes was around 2005 or so, i hear it's changed a lot since then
>>54955013
Not available on linux.
>>54949381
>Are there fees that I don't know about that 4chan must pay to WebP creators or something that I don't know about?
Web browsers don't support the format, yet.
With the exception of chrome.
Besides why WebP when you have FLIF?
>>54949533
>cwebp
Notconvert
Where are my imagemagick bros?
>>54953656
>GIMP is a GNU abomination at best.
What do I use senpai?
>>54949381
>Why would 4chan NOT adopt this image format?
Thumbnail creation.
>>54956554
ImageMagick for image manipulation
Krita for drawing / creative working
>>54949381
WebP a shit. FLIF if we're going to use a new image format.
>>54956554
xpaint
>>54956582
give it some time
>>54956570
If I want to meme that involve copying a pic and edit it and make it fit in the BG?
>>54956602
>xpaint
a program its original purpose was creating diagrams of electrical circuits.
>>54956639
Sounds like something I'd either use Krita or Inkscape for.
Krita is just nice in general since they actually understand how to do image processing. GIMP is basically a pile of legacy bloat written by programmers who are neither artists nor image processing experts.
>>54956674
I see, what's the closest thing to PS?
>>54956687
Photoshop is the closest thing to Photoshop
>>54949381
Rather than asking why Hiroshima didn't adopt it, ask why Firecucks hasn't adopted it. Direct your frustrations towards Mozilla's bugzilla and IRC channels.
>>54950153
+1
>>54950182
>90%
Hell no
>http://caniuse.com/#feat=webp
Opera is irrelevant (obviously), citing all Chromium forks (Opera being one) won't help.
Both IE and Firefox do NOT support WebP. It would be better to say that only Chrom{e,ium} supports it.
You need at least IE and/or Firefox adopting it.
>>54956582
We did test it extensively, FLIF loses compared to lossless WebP in real, standard, extensive test cases. Note that I'm not suggesting WebP at all.
>>54954151
We did test APNG extensively too, that test is no longer reliable. APGN is better than GIF, that's all. I wouldn't use WebP for video animations anyway. For those, webbums are a thing already now
>>54954581
>it would use more CPU
Hell, no. Sadly, OP & >>54949533 keep spamming their "Webm hack" designed to burst a CPU into flames. This may lead some to believe that WebP does that same or that it has similar issues. That would be incorrect.
>>54956687
Don't search for a replacement, search for a tool specialized for doing each job. The outcome is often superior to ps (I won't name each one, install a GNU/Linux distro). The workflow anyway is excruciatingly unholy if compared to ps, and most graphic designers care only about standard tools working in a Mac.
>>54956797
>search for a tool specialized for doing each job
Ok, I need to clean manga pages.
That means I need to modify colors, size, and some cleaning and even redrawing.
>>54956854
I would use Krita for that
>>54950122
>Hiro has added malware ads.
This, I've had some weird tabs open on my Note 5 while on 4chan, and the weird ads at the top. I re enabled adblock on 4chan becaude of it.
Anyone else in the same situation?
>>54956797
>Both IE and Firefox do NOT support webp.
>IE
Nobody on 4chan uses IE
>>54956908
Boku no Firefox + uBlock or Clover fixes that :^)
>>54957099
You'd be surprised.
IE and Safari are both the most used browsers in Windows and on Apple devices. The large majority ( >90% ) of people browsing this subreddit features on of the two, if they are not browsing on mobile.
You want to believe that most ppl here use GNU, but that's not true. Some alternative chans have a different demographics, each has its own cancer to deal with anyway.
>>54957099
on 4chan there are users whining that webm doesn't play in their apple devices....
>>54956797
>Direct your frustrations towards Mozilla's bugzilla and IRC channels.
Mozilla published their research. Who refuted their results, where?
>We did test it extensively, FLIF loses compared to lossless WebP in real, standard, extensive test cases.
Are the results published?
>We did test APNG extensively too, that test is no longer reliable. APGN is better than GIF, that's all.
Again, I'd like to see the results.
>I wouldn't use WebP for video animations anyway. For those, webbums are a thing already now
Chrome should remove the "animated webp" as the dead code (keep the static webp and keep webm), since they only use it to block APNG adoption.
>>54949381
Because then there'd be yet another picture standard on 4chan that my browser doesn't support. Only this time it's literally completely superfluous.
>>54957271
>Because then there'd be yet another picture standard on 4chan that my browser doesn't support.
You could use a browser that's not shit
>>54957470
Go away google shilll
>>54952253
no self-respecting website would accept files 30% of the users can't load
Do webp support animation?
>>54958703
yes
>>54958733
so it's literally .webm in every single way but one letter?
>>54958703
badly.
Why do we need all these new formats all the fucking time ?
if there was a clear need for them they would have been already adopted, otherwise they can just fuck off to the niches of the internet.
>>54958958
No, it's a completely different container format
>>54959052
you sound just like the people who got butt hurt after the switch from mp4 to mkv.
>>54959020
worse than using video format for animation?
>>54959052
>Why do we need all these new formats all the fucking time ?
Because compression is getting better.
>>54959052
>new formats all the time, ugh
>jpeg, gif and bmp in used since the beginning of the web
>png also for most of it
>literally nothing else use for static images and small animations
>all
>these
>new
>formats
>>54959110
WebP devs claim that animated WebP is better than WebM, but I don't think so. There must be a reason why WebM is so popular while nobody even knows about anim-webp.
>>54959124
>webp does everything jpeg,png,gif,bmp does in a more efficient amount of data.
>>54959052
Just use wav and bmp, gramps. mp3 and png are just fads.
>>54959200
>But using many times more cpu time
In the time it takes to get a single webp, you can probably encode hundreds of jpegs thanks to the optimized algorithm and decades of hardware acceleration. That may not matter for shitposters, but for servers it definitely does matter. I think in the end it's simply not economical to use webp.
>>54949381
Because it's a shitty format that only supports 4:2:0 chroma subsampling in lossy mode.
>>54958958
Container is based on RIFF instead of matroska. For lossy mode uses only intra frame compression of VP8 codec used in webm. Lossless mode is completely original and works in RGB colorspace instead of YUV.
>>54959185
There's only that much compression you can gain without using techniques invented for video.
>>54959236
>VP8
what
>>54959235
>hundreds
Good thing nobody pays you to think, because what you said is garbage.
>>54959100
>the switch from mp4 to mkv.
When did this even happen?
I've seen it in my torrents for a while, but didn't hear the news like I did about avi -> mp4.
>>54959359
When people realized MKV is a nicer container.
>>54959323
Check wikipedia.
>>54959359
https://torrentfreak.com/images/nfo-tvx2642k16.txt
>>54959359
mp4 was the standard until a few months ago when the groups made hevc the new standard and switched to mkv.
>>54959387
"what", as in, isn't it even less effective than h264?
>>54959334
What's the number then? I was hoping someone would at least test it and not just shitpost. It's certainly a large number.
>>54959501
mp4 and mkv can both hold h.264 encoded videos, they are just containers, although as far as containers go mkv "officially" supports more codecs
>>54959519
Wasn't the original post talking about codec supported by webp?
>>54959545
whoops, I thought you were the other guy, the one who torrents.
>>54959389
>when the groups made hevc the new standard and switched to mkv.
wrong, standard is still H.264
>>54959501
It is. It's also the reason why webp is bound to yuv420p.
Because of that I'm completely against the format until google gets their shit together and replaces it with VP9/10.
>>54959640
>Google has stated that they will not deploy VP10 internally or release it publicly, making VP9 the last of the VPX-based codecs to be released by Google.
Why bother?
>>54959716
Well shit. It feels like google after 2013 completely gave up on anything web* related.
>>54959716
>On September 1, 2015, the Alliance for Open Media announced its formation, consolidating the efforts of open source codec developers Google, Mozilla, Cisco, Microsoft, and Intel into one codec, AV1, which is expected to ship by the end of March 2017. As with VP8 and VP9, the AV1 codec will be completely royalty- and disclosure-free. The AV1 codec is largely based upon VP10, and Google has stated that they will not deploy VP10 internally or release it publicly, making VP9 the last of the VPX-based codecs to be released by Google.
http://www.streamingmedia.com/Articles/Editorial/What-Is-.../What-Is-VP9-111334.aspx
"VP9" will be the last of the VPx line but Google will continue to work on video codecs apparently.
>>54959625
Then I guess my sources are ahead of the time.
>>54959760
AV1 is gonna be pretty cool stuff. AV1 is going to be a cooperation between VP10, Thor and Daala, and backed by like 20 big tech companies (not some no-name startups)
Proof of why patents are necessary for innovation. Without patents, we'd all just be using HEVC and there would be no incentive to improve on it :^)
>>54959760
AV1 - The 1st codec to encode Adult Video
>>54949533
make a gui like webm for retards. I need to easily change settings.
>>54956563
So modern WebP still does not support thumbnail? Are you sure, site like ebay load fast on chrome and they all have webp images.
Are you saying all of those images are full res and not thumbnails?
>>54960624
>/g/ - Technology
>>54957717
>forced to use a shit browser because "muh freedum"
Now I see why they call you freetards
>>54960704
chromium is free too
shill logic
[X] defeated
Can someone explain to me why 420 YUV color space is bad in WebP?
Because if it is then how does JPG fuck up the colors in >>54953298
I'm confused.
>>54960825
It matters for quality, transparent encodes. 4:2:0 YUV essentially lowers resolution of color to 1/4 of the original. It's glaringly obvious in some samples with contrasting colors, especially bright red.
Consider that both files were encoded with -quality 100 in cwebp/mozilla's cjpeg. For the jpeg one I also set -sample as 1x1 because for whatever reason it subsamples to 4:2:0 by default. Zoom both files to 100% and pay attention to the red around contours.
https://a.pomf.cat/yrojxi.jpg
https://a.pomf.cat/bcpllv.webp (it's not even displaying it, well shit)
>>54950995
man cwebp
https://developers.google.com/speed/webp/download
there's lossless and lossy webp.
quality range is 0-100
100 is maximum compression.
default is 75
>>54953298
cwebp has a -jpeg_like encoding option.
> Change the internal parameter mapping to better match the expected size of JPEG compression. This flag will generally produce an output file of similar size to its JPEG equivalent (for the
same -q setting), but with less visual distortion.
>>54949563
libwebp includes gif2webp.
>and vwebp (viewer) and cwebp and dwebp and webpmux.
>>54961177
What the fuck are you talking about. They both literally look the same to me. Only difference is the JPG is a 449KB fat fuck and the WebP is a skinny 199KB.
>>54949381
>Why hasn't 4chan adopted WebP yet?
because no one besides you gives a shit, nobody uses dial up anymore grandpa
>>54961691
see >>54953298 and >>54954113
>>54949381
>Why hasn't 4chan adopted WebP yet?
Why would 4chan adopt WebP when FLIF is SO much better?
Sadly, Chrom* and SJWFox still haven't adopted it
https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=539120
https://bug623317.bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1240692
>>54957173
>IE and Safari are both the most used browsers in Windows and on Apple devices.
Chrome has 60%+ of the desktop browsing
>>54961726
Because flif has no support and will never get it because it stayed a meme format for too long like WMA and THEORA.
>>54961726
the format literally isn't finished yet
>>54961646
If you still can't see it then fuck you.
>>54961854
Maybe it's my monitor but I still can't see the difference. Yeah it's probably my monitor, it's an old bulky HP monitor from like 2010.
>>54962017
It's not your monitor, I can't see the difference either
>>54962168
Not him but not all monitors display the same color accuracy and over time they will start to fail. There is a difference between 4:4:4 and 4:2:0 but you can only see it on a brand new professional amoled monitor/phone screen (ie Note 4).
This is actually a good thing for Webp though, since most don't have expensibe monitors most won't notice the lacl of contours on Webp or whatever.
How can I open the webp on linux not using chrome or chromium? Viewnior doesn't support it.
>>54962237
Download the webp pre-compiled package from google and use their CLI Webp viewer.
>>54962235
>Not him but not all monitors display the same color accuracy and over time they will start to fail. There is a difference between 4:4:4 and 4:2:0 but you can only see it on a brand new professional amoled monitor/phone screen (ie Note 4).
Come on, you can do better. At least come up with a creative name like “rotational velocidensity”.
Surely Samsung must pay you enough for at least that level of baseline creativity, yes?
>>54962237
MXcomix do, I've comprised most of manga collection.
Went from about 2.1 TB to ~500 GB.
>>54962328
put like a green box around specifically what part of the picture our eyes should be focused on, I dont see it either, Zoom in or something i'm blind
>>54962328
It's fucking true. How the fuck do expect anon with a 2010 hp monitor to see the difference? It's probably not even 8-bit and displaying wrong colors everywhere.
Amoled displays (available outside of samshit stuff) is the perfect display for looking at colors, period.
>>54962425
>Amoled displays (available outside of samshit stuff) is the perfect display for looking at colors, period.*
*only lasts 3 months, consider replacing your display after that or your delta E will be so wrong a gameboy color would have better color reproduction capabilities in comparison
>>54962492
Obviously amoled has advanced a lot and has a longer lifespan now.
If it was so shit then why did the crackberry Q10 use it?
>>54962235
>>54962425
>>54962529
I want phonefags to leave
>>54962541
I WAS TALKING ABOUT THE DISPLAY YOU COCKSUCKER!
