Why the FUCK hasn't 4chan adopted WebP yet?
Full res of pic related here:
https://my.mixtape.moe/nqvdrz.png
WebP offers:
-lossy encoding
-lossless encoding
-transparency
-animations
-lower lossless file size compared to PNG
-lower file sized compared to JPG at the quality
It's literally the best general purpose format that there can exist for the web. It replaces PNG, JPG, and even GIF.
>>55011102
That is really nice desu senpai. Idk why nobody aint not using dat. S'good.
>>55011102
holy shit, that's really good
>>55011102
>.png
Why didn't you upload it as a webp?
>Why the FUCK hasn't 4chan adopted WebP yet?
No clue, personally I think webp is great.
>>55011102
Is webp free as in freedom?
>>55011396
Yes. The difference is the text under the photos.
>>55011396
Both pictures are the same dumbass. Both have dithering and shitty jpg compression. Leads me to believe that it's the same picture copied over again
Cuz nip cuck doesn't bother to update the 4chan infrastructure a.k.a. poorly skinned vichan.
>>55011102
Prove its better by making this a webp and I'll discern if it's better or not
>>55011541
Do you also force 100 fps and listen to FLAC audio?
>>55011102
>can't differentiate lossy images from lossless images without downloading and inspecting them
sounds like a recipe for disaster tbqh
>>55011102
cause nobody uses that, and in 10 years it would probably be the same. good luck delivering some graphics to a client in a webp
i'd rather have vp9 webm. can't find any converters for android that work with vp8.
>>55011629
Yes. Our lives are too short to not enjoy them to the fullest.
>>55011102
Because FLIF is superior.
>>55011965
>no support
>still in alpha development
>superior
kek
>>55012015
>still in alpha
>already superior to weebp
>>55011102
https://archive.rebeccablacktech.com/g/image/CErmBTGhDklTDgP_4Kvy1g
wew lad
>>55011965
What about lossy compression?
Because asian moot doesn't give a shit. He's a hands-off admin
>>55012045
It doesn't have lossy compression. It's actually a really shitty format because the encodings take forever in recent code. Tried it, crashed half the time and when it did work it took like 5 minutes for a 1080p image. I think it's DOA.
>>55012060
I miss when he used to post engrish stuff in the announcement area. He hasn't done that for a while.
>>55012079
I once used a webp encoder and it literally used so much memory that I had to restart my PC. webp is a useless format.
>>55012079
That settles it - lets talk about it again when its useful for anything (probably never).
>>55012106
Wow I didn't realize webp was this bad. That explains why Microsoft, Mozilla and Apple have said that they will never support it.
>>55012106
Same here. 0.2.0 was fucking shit.
0.5.0 seems to be doing far better, no memory problems yet and I'm on a 2GB laptop too.
You should try it:
https://storage.googleapis.com/downloads.webmproject.org/releases/webp/index.html
>>55012155
It USED to be bad. Crashes, corrupt images, you name it cwebp 0.2.0 and early was fucking shit, almost gave up hope on Webp completely.
However like I said 0.5.0 cwebp seems to be great. No crashes, corrupt images, or memory problems.
BUTT is it ready to be adopted everywhere yet? I'm not sure.
>>55012106
can confirm. I tried to open some webps on my iphone and it didn't work. then I tried it on my desktop and it crashed the browser. lmao
>>55012211
iPhones won't ever support webp because tim cook is a retard. Does your "desktop" happen to be an apple based one? OS X is very buggy and has many incompatibility issues that have never been fixed.
>>55011102
Because it is not an established and standardized by an international agency recognized format. This world is worth nothing if you do not have an organization protecting and taking care of your specification.
>>55012352
ebay and facebook are already using webp you tard.
cwebp 0.5.0 is out, ebay, ~80% of web browsers support it and a growing number of other websites are already using it. I think 4chan is ready to adopt Webp to be honest. Just have to get the word out to Hiro.
Somebody tell hiroshima to add webp support on 4chan, I'm too lazy and stupid to write a well worded plead for Webp support.
>>55011102
>He does it for free
>>55012595
Webp is open source you dumbass. Google gets $0 if you use it on your website or to distribute photos unlike BPG.
>>55012595
I'm pretty sure the WebP engineers are paid by Google.
>>55012378
Ebay and Facebook? I'm talking about serious organizations like ISO and ECMA.
Besides that webp does not support CMYK.
>>55012106
>webp is a useless format because the encoder sucks
k
>>55011102
>he gets paid by google to shill their useless format
>>55012635
>Ebay and Facebook? I'm talking about serious organizations like ISO and ECMA.
They will soon. Webp used to be a joke nobody took seriously, most due to the shitty 0.2.0 Webp encoder.
>Besides that webp does not support CMYK.
But it does supports 24-bit RGBA lossless encoding which is more than enough for professional use.
>>55012657
>175 generations
>lossless
Retard.
>>55012657
>>55011102
>this shit again
Stop this shilling. Nobody will bother switching to webp, just to save a few Kilobytes.
>>55012690
Why do you feel it's useless? Has the OP not demonstrated its use? An imageboard especially would benefit from such a thing, moot gave statistics before where only a few bytes saved gigabytes of bandwidth. Webm has done nicely for the site as a whole. I don't know how you can say adding support for such a thing is useless, here of all places.
As for being paid to post, I don't know how you even jump to such a conclusion, this kind of discussion is appropriate for /g/, if someone is making the same post comprised of the same facts they researched that shouldn't detract from their point at all. People did the same thing with webm when it was appropriate, same with SVG before that, unfortunately SVG has security concerns.
What reason do you have for saying webp is useless and not worth adding to the allowed files list? Are you just after attention?
>>55012812
>Why do you feel it's useless?
It's already been deprecated in favor of FLIF.
>>55012795
More like 50% over JPG and 25-50% over typical PNG files.
>>55012831
Instead of complaining about webp you should be championing FLIF as the OP is doing with webp, I personally would be okay with either.
This person has the right idea >>55012657
>>55012790
If that's also you then you should stick to only doing that not complaining without presenting alternatives or solutions.
>>55012831
FLIF IS A LOSSLESS ENCODER YOU FUCKING PIECE OF SHIT.
>>55011102
yay this thread again!
here is your (you) and your 0.4%
>>55012894
Oh look it's that anon who botched his PNG with lossy encoding introducing color banding and grain on his image to compete with WebP.
>>55012925
should've used FLIF instead
>>55012871
it's still not worth it unless it is used for very high resolution images.
>>55012925
hey look its that anon that still shills for webp/chrom* when its compression advantage over png when is
0 . 4 %
.
4
%
>>55012795
People have done more to save bytes let alone kilobytes, that shit adds up when your traffic is this high.
>>55012967
>everyone botches their PNG images with grain and color banding
okay autismo
>>55012967
>>55012894
>the go to point against webp is that it's only slightly better than png
That's not a good case for PNG imo.
>>55012984
>People have done more to save bytes let alone kilobytes
yes 20 years ago when there were bandwidth limits. There is more problem now from the abused javascript rather than the size of the images.
>>55012995
>pngs are soft mushy hairy peeches, that their advantage over lossy alternatives
nice one famalam
>>55012984
It's also gonna help distribution of 4k-8K res images. A lot of people are gonna be upgrading to 4K monitors soon and even 4K displays on their phones (see z5 premium).
>>55012953
Correct which are going to become popular as people start using 4K displays. You know the prices for them are falling right?
>>55013030
Are you trying to imply that bandwidth is free now?
>There is more problem now from the abused javascript rather than the size of the images.
How do you mean? People (including Google), have done work on text compression as well.
You should put this on the feedback page.
This is wonderful. Anyway a person could quickly convert all there JPEGs, GIFs, and PNGs To this amazing format?
>>55011102
i think that pic makes a great case for webp's, and i generally support your idea, but doesn't 4chan have some regular procedure intended for making this kind of suggestions?
Neither WebP, or BPG, or FLIP are the future formats. A young image format must be supported by every player, built from scratch without any hack and maintained by an international organization, and must unify all this:
- Lossy and Lossless support (royalty-free and state of the art).
- Support for a wide variety of color space (scRGB, RGBA, CMYK, Rec 709, Rec 2020 CIE, YIQ, YUV, YDbDr, xvYCC, YPbPr, YCbCr, HSV, HSL, etc...).
- Support 3D stereoscopic.
- Optimized compression for grayscale and bi-level.
- Alpha channel, transparency.
- Tiled Images.
- Image Trees.
- Multiple subfiles.
- Multiple resolution.
- High dynamic range support.
- ICC profile, Extensible Metadata Platform, Exif.
- Supports animation (Intra-frame only and simple motion compensation).
- Support panorama with out-of-the-box interaction QuickTime VR.
- Support for layers, storing the information in Their metadata.
- Compression techniques for color palette.
- Feature "3D object view" like QuickTime VR.
- RAW support supported by all camera manufacturers.
- Water mark and password to protect privacy.
- Prevent the use of DRM as something that hurts the intellectual property and fair use.
>>55013057
>people with 4k displays need webp
>referring to outdated tech with stillborn formats from google
ayy
>>55013067
>go to google docs
>downloads more than 5MB in JS
>images total in 1.2MB
The problem with javascript is so severe that the image compression looks like nothing.
>>55013155
That may be the case but it's a separate issue entirely, just because some people are piling on other files doesn't mean image files shouldn't be cared for. Also is that the size of the javascript file or the amount transmitted, the uncompressed size of text formats is irrelevant when considering bandwidth since they are sent compressed over the wire.
>>55013131
>Support panorama with out-of-the-box interaction QuickTime VR.
>Feature "3D object view" like QuickTime VR.
360 photos are already standarized. shit only needs to be implemented in the player. those """""3d""""" rotation videos were always a useless hack, which, again, can be implemented in a video player, if necessary.
Dillo and IceCat do not support WebP........
>>55013244
Never heard of the. Try pale moon or just use chromium like a normal human being.
>>55013202
>has to resorts to saying text is transmitted gzip'ed just to make a point for webp compression ratio over modern js libs size
>webp compression ratio is 0.4%
oh god, hold my sides
>>55011102
It isn't supported by browsers like w3m and links, so it's shit.
>>55013202
I don't think think text compression on JS exists other than removing all whitespace. Browsers require plain text on JS.
For a new image format to succeed it must be able to compress 3D images efficiently. Can webp compress 3D images?
>>55013373
>Content-Encoding: gzip
>>55013373
>what is gzip
>>55013271
The point is that text and binary compression are different and that compressed and decompressed size are 2 different things. I think you're confused or reading me wrong.
>>55013373
You're confusing "minifying" with compression. HTTP servers can configure what compression they use for transmitting various formats, browsers decompress them for use. The decompressed size is a memory concern not a bandwidth one.
>>55011102
Autism
>>55013416
>0 . 4 %
>.
>4
>%
there is no misunderstanding, friend
>>55013443
You're acting as if webp is bad just because some people have large javascript files on their site, that doesn't actually make sense or have any bearing.
As for the other point that works against you, if webp was 0.4% bigger you'd have an argument, the fact that in the worst case webp is still better albeit marginally doesn't support a case against webp, it's a point in its favor.
You seem to be misunderstanding what that percentage means and also conflating different formats, do you see why it seems that way?
We're discussing something that can be objectively measured here as well, as such you should be presenting cases where PNG outperforms webp, not the other way around, doing that hurts your argument. If I'm not being clear please specify what you don't understand.
>>55013586
>outperforms
>0.4%
HAHAHAHA
>If I'm not being clear please specify what you don't understand.
Trying really hard, aren't you?
>>55013396
get out with your meme shit
All these Reddit fags wanting WebP on a site made for posting chinese cartoons, like anybody actually gives a shit
>>55011289
>>55011345
the samefagging is cringy
>>55013629
I was in that thread, you used lossy png compression so your PNGs were invalid. Webp will compress non-lossy PNG images by 25-50% more.
>>55013629
That number is a greater compression ratio, it means webp handles the image better than png does. That's where the misunderstanding is.
>Trying really hard, aren't you?
Yes, my English isn't very good so I'm not sure if it's me or you who's to blame for the misunderstanding. I'm trying my best to be pretty clear but it seems like I'm not doing a good job, even still numbers like this shouldn't be confusing no matter what language.
>>55013641
Anime people care the most about encoding and compression techniques since they usually benefit the most from it. Why would redditors care about webp when they hotlink all their images anyway.
>>55013706
reddit is stuck in the gif age. the don't care about progress.
>>55013664
For reference: https://archive.rebeccablacktech.com/g/thread/S54995820
>>55013641
Lossy Webp favors chinese cartoons actually. Compared to JPG, Webp shave off more than 50% file size of a JPG while maintaining the same visual quality.
Static Webm is 2048p and should give you some idea of how good Webp compression is.
>>55013735
Nobody actually cares though. I feel no difference between downloading a 1.2mb .jpg and a 800kb static WebP image. I don't download my porn to have the crystal clear bullshit, I download my porn because I want to fap. Nobody gives a single fuck about this.
>>55013782
>I don't care
>therefor nobody cares
The only thing people don't care about is you.
Space savings no matter how miniscule translate into money saved by hosters. This is a real world benefit of the technology, companies like Google, Facebook, and Ebay wouldn't be using them otherwise and the cost of migration is 0.
>>55013733
in the end it all came down to
>0 . 4 %
>.
>4
>%
but you are free to try and disprove it (you wont cause you cant, format was dead before it even became a thing)
>>55013234
Quicktime VR has the best implementation of panorama for a format with more than 20 years is still excellent.
https://cseweb.ucsd.edu/~ravir/6998/papers/p29-chen.pdf
>>55013782
>Nobody actually cares though.
I do and so do others in this thread, cunt.
Go back to posting 1GB TIFF images of frogs on r3ddit you cancerous fuck.
>>55011289
not supported by all browsers
>>55013836
I don't think anyone is trying to disprove it, literally nobody here has a stake in a 19 year old format.
>png
>not a thing
are you retarded?
>>55013827
>The only thing people don't care about is you.
>>55011787
You and I have different definitions of fulfilment.
>>55013847
see >>55013138
>>55013879
>>png
>>not a thing
>are you retarded?
>>55013138
>>55013925
Outdated or not it's still going to be the mainstream, that's always been the case for displays. I don't even know what you're trying to get at with such a remark. I'm willing to bet the majority of users are still on 1080p if not less right now.
>>55013827
Was that supposed to be clever, anon? The cost of migration is more than 0, anon. Especially for the people who can't use this, because their device doesn't support it. Everyone's device can into jpg and png. What's the plan, have a good chunk of your userbase leave because incompatible and save a few cents, practically gaining no profit, and remaining at a stagnant source of income.
>>55013847
I've never been to Reddit in my life.
Why the FUCK hasn't 4chan adopted FLIF yet?
-lower lossless file size compared to webP
>>55013853
Webm is not supported by all browsers, we still use it. By now like 90% of internet users can open webms in their browsers too.
>>55011357
Yes
>>55013973
If you're uneducated on this technology why do you feel the need to talk about it? HTTP servers can distinguish between browsers and serve whichever asset is appropriate in the same way they handle various compression techniques despite varying browser support.
Please enlighten me, what cost is there?
>>55013782
You are no longer allowed to have opinions on /g/. Now piss off.
>>55014017
This anon has a point.
If we adopt webp, it will soon gain mass adoption. the same could be said for bpg.
>>55014085
Yeah but BPG is DOA since it has royalty fees.
>>55011102
I do not think the webp a great format, but I have nothing against to allow it. It is certainly much better than using webm to replace Jiff.
I managed to get the 0.4% guy to keep the thread bumped that whole time, I'm going to go do laundry now, jej.
>>55014055
Great, now you're storing two copies of every image instead of 1. Good job on those savings, pal
>>55014159
>better than using webm to replace Jiff
WebM is a container, you nincompoop.
>>55014085
FLIF is the future. webp is DOA and rejected by mozilla
>>55014190
>leaving in the middle of the fun
wtf nigga...
>>55014192
Storage is cheaper than bandwidth, you only have to store the copies once, you have to serve them every request. It's even better when factoring in how much you'd save with the webp copies. Also you act like people don't have several copies of image assets for all kinds of mobile shit anyway.
>>55014159
>>55014215
Is animated webp any different than a webm without audio? That is to say does animated webp use VPX?
>>55014230
You wanna do my laundry? Besides I'm not needed anymore, the thread will sustain itself and I'll more than likely be back to pester the png autist next thread, he shows up in every single one of these. Part of me thinks it's the OP doing it on purpose to keep his thread alive and spread awareness much like gif zealots in the webm threads. Fun either way to be honest.
>>55014215
WebM is a standard that specifies what codec goes into it, which will not in and how it will be done so. Extensible Binary Meta Language is a container.
>>55014246
(animated) webp are based around vp8
webms can contain whatever, vp9 being the most desired one (4chan allows vp8 only)
>>55014219
Mozilla also paid thousands to remove the term "slave" from code. Ironically, mozilla is DOA.
>>55014246
>Also you act like people don't have several copies of image assets for all kinds of mobile shit anyway.
does 4chan?
>>55014328
WebM supports multiple codecs though, VP8, VP9, Vorbis, and Opus, as well as text streams.
>>55014353
As a Firefox user I can't express how mad I am at Mozilla for the shit they've done the past few years.
>>55014219
So a SJW infested shithole with a constantly dropping market share doesn't like webp? And anyone on /g/ is supposed to care?
>>55014411
That “SJW infested shithole” is the only browser vendor that currently cares about freedom.
As a browser of /g/, you should very much care about freedom.
>>55014391
Last time I checked the mobile version has
iOS specific assets, it probably has stuff for other platforms too. This is a standard practice.
>>55014437
>As a browser of /g/, you should very much care about freedom.
Stop pushing your agenda to the entire community, this is why people hate FSF and GPL evangelists.
>>55014437
They only care about your freedom if you're not a cis white male.
>>55014437
I browse /g/ on pre-Blink Opera 12 and in spite of 3 years without updates even I have webp support. It's a free format, and a "browser vendor that cares about freedom" need to get with the times, get their shit together and support the image formats that the internet may use in the future.
>>55014437
>currently
previously*
They're progressivly regressing in all aspects of freedom while pushing standards nobody(their users) wants.
>>55014437
>what is Brave
>>55014478
RAW has more prevalence than WebP yet no browser supports it. Why?
>>55014544
incomplete
call me back when it can replace firefox, because currently it can't (missing functionality)
>>55014407
WebM support, because the standard determines so, I could put a pdf within the WebM but would be out of standard.
The issue is not the container, but the standard that gives guarantee it will work.
Because gookmoot is a piece of shit. We would have had VP9 Webms by now if it wasn't for gookmoot and his little sweet tea.
So I want to get the webp encoding tools. Do I download the normal libwebp 0.5.0 or the "no wic" variant?
>thread about webp being the future
>not a single actual webp file posted
why do we need support for this crap again?
>>55015855
No bully Hiro.
>>55015911
The only way to post them is inside of webms, some have been posted in this very thread.
>>55015885
I'd stick with the standard 0.5.0 encoder.
