Why hasn't 4chan adopted WebP?
It's pretty much proven that Lossless WebP is superior to PNG, and Lossy WebP is superior to JPEG.
At least 70% of the internet supports it, and with FireFox slowly becoming a 1:1 match with Chromium, that figure is likely to jump.
On that subject, why doesn't 4chan support VP9 on WebM?
terrible redundant name with an even worse file extension
Why do you keep making the same fucking threads every day?
>WHY DONT WE HAVE WEBP
>WHY DONT WE HAVE VP9
>WHY DONT WE HAVE WEBP
>WHY DONT WE HAVE VP9
FUCK OFF YOU BOARD SLIDING PIECE OF SHIT
Lossless WebP is garbage and unsupported everywhere unlike ubiquitous PNG, Lossy WebP is VP8 garbage and inferior to JPEG with terrible artifacts
>>55004268
too soon for another one of these, i wont be able to "contribute" till tomorrow
anyway, there is your (you) and your
>0 . 4 %
>.
>4
>%
>>55004377
>Lossless WebP is garbage
It's better than PNG tho.
>Lossy WebP is VP8 garbage
It's mostly better than JPEG tho.
That being said, it doesn't look like Google is going to "upgrade" WebP to VP9, because it would break older images.
On top of that, VP10 was discontinued, and Google and several others are now focusing on AV1.
Most they can do for WebP (or even WebM for that matter) now is make the the VP8 encoder faster and more efficient.
RIP.
>>55005282
>Most they can do for WebP (or even WebM for that matter) now is make the the VP8 encoder faster and more efficient.
RIP.
It's the VP9 encoder that really needs optimising.
>>55005305
WebP isn't likely to move onto VP9 though.
But yeah, would be great if they worked on optimizing VP9, because the current encoder is slow as fuck.
>>55004268
firefox is irrelevant
>WebP lossy compression is 4:2:0 chroma only
>when JPG can do 4:4:4
If you're talking about new image formats at least pick something decent like FLIF
>>55005824
Nobody cares retard
