Mainly a compatibility thing afaik. For web stuff it's actually pretty great but people don't like not being able to download it in a format that works with image viewers and editing apps
Honestly I think it was because Microsoft took forever to implement support for it in Windows systems, like the image viewer and Explorer. That is assuming there’s support now. I don’t actually know.
My impression is that for ordinary non-power users it was supported from the start (i.e. the commonplace image viewers and editors could open it - at least I personally had no issues), it just felt annoying at first because it seemed forced upon the user.
It works because the .png and .jpg extensions are associated on your system with programs that, by coincidence, are also able to handle webp images and that check the binary content of the file to figure out what format they are when they're handling them.
If there's a program associated with .png on a system that doesn't know how to handle webp, or that trusts the file extension when deciding how to decode the contents of the file, it will fail on these renamed files. This isn't a reliable way to "fix" these sorts of things.
It is apparently good at making animated media however its format is incompatible with many software media viewers.
It's the bane of my existence when trying to save an image, but I am also exploring its uses in making animated backgrounds for graphical chat interfaces.
At this point if you're going to use WebP you may as well just use AVIF instead, better compression ratio and the support matrix isn't that different between them.
Nothing, most software has supported webp for 15 years, the last few stragglers have caught up two years ago or so, people on the internet are just very incapable of letting go of an opinion.
Its more about it being a non-open standard that was unilaterally implemented by Google, and then just expected to immediately become the default because daddy Google said so.
Webp is actually good format AFAIK better than the traditional alternatives it's just that it doesn't have such wide support and jpeg-xl is superior in many areas.
Yes. It loads faster, it has integrated quality levels that increase while loading (so a web hoster doesn't need to have 5 different copies of the same image at different qualities), it has better compression and it also supports more features. It can also be lossless. Most importantly, jpeg can be converted to jpeg xl losslessly, and it will have the benefits of jpeg xl.
48 Comments
empireOfLove2@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 82 pts · 296d
Google probably realizes literally nobody likes WEBP and avoids using it
tekato@lemmy.world · 79 pts · 296d
This is being done because PDF is adopting JPEG XL, so Chromium must support it since it doubles as a PDF reader.
taaz@biglemmowski.win · 17 pts · 296d
have not hear anything bad about webp, whats up with that
YoSoySnekBoi@kbin.earth · 47 pts · 296d
Mainly a compatibility thing afaik. For web stuff it's actually pretty great but people don't like not being able to download it in a format that works with image viewers and editing apps
FaceDeer@fedia.io · 33 pts · 296d
So it's basically "nobody wants to use it because nobody is using it."
I actually rather like it, and at this point many of the tools I use have caught up so I don't mind it any more myself.
Dojan@pawb.social · 10 pts · 295d
Honestly I think it was because Microsoft took forever to implement support for it in Windows systems, like the image viewer and Explorer. That is assuming there’s support now. I don’t actually know.
antonim@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 5 pts · 296d
My impression is that for ordinary non-power users it was supported from the start (i.e. the commonplace image viewers and editors could open it - at least I personally had no issues), it just felt annoying at first because it seemed forced upon the user.
Sxan@piefed.zip · 0 pts · 295d
Probably some of þat. Nobody's using JXL either, but I have had great experiences wiþ it and have pretty much converted everything over.
raef@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 294d
Went aren't you consistent with your use of thorn? There's "either" and "everything"
Sxan@piefed.zip · 1 pts · 294d
I make mistakes ¯\(ツ)/¯
Sxan@piefed.zip · -3 pts · 295d
I went þrough þe same process, only wiþ JPEGXL, because I don't trust Google wiþ *anything.*¹
¹ A blatant lie, since I haven't found a good replacement for Go.
glowie@infosec.pub · 6 pts · 296d
Would be nice if browsers could reconvert to PNG for download
webhead@sh.itjust.works · 4 pts · 295d
There's an extension in Firefox that I used to use for that. Would be nice to have and built in tho.
webghost0101@sopuli.xyz · 0 pts · 296d
I don’t know why it works but if i rename a .webp extension into a .png or .jpg it just works.
FaceDeer@fedia.io · 16 pts · 296d
It works because the .png and .jpg extensions are associated on your system with programs that, by coincidence, are also able to handle webp images and that check the binary content of the file to figure out what format they are when they're handling them.
If there's a program associated with .png on a system that doesn't know how to handle webp, or that trusts the file extension when deciding how to decode the contents of the file, it will fail on these renamed files. This isn't a reliable way to "fix" these sorts of things.
ProjectPatatoe@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 295d
My favorite thing about Irfanview is that it tells you of the extension doesn't match the type and asks if you want it to rename the file.
Blackfeathr@lemmy.world · 14 pts · 296d
It is apparently good at making animated media however its format is incompatible with many software media viewers.
It's the bane of my existence when trying to save an image, but I am also exploring its uses in making animated backgrounds for graphical chat interfaces.
Glitchvid@lemmy.world · 12 pts · 296d
At this point if you're going to use WebP you may as well just use AVIF instead, better compression ratio and the support matrix isn't that different between them.
mostlikelyaperson@lemmy.world · 11 pts · 295d
Nothing, most software has supported webp for 15 years, the last few stragglers have caught up two years ago or so, people on the internet are just very incapable of letting go of an opinion.
ugjka@lemmy.ugjka.net · 5 pts · 295d
webp is great on discord for "gifs" if u need fit a long animation under 10 meg limit. And you can make it with ffmpeg
cheesorist@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 294d
webp hate is one thing I never understood, especially on lemmy. it has worked flawlessly for me, if you use dogshit image viewers thats on you.
empireOfLove2@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 2 pts · 289d
Its more about it being a non-open standard that was unilaterally implemented by Google, and then just expected to immediately become the default because daddy Google said so.
cheesorist@lemmy.world · 0 pts · 289d
oic, fuck it in that case
Obamakitten@lemdro.id · 0 pts · 285d
cheesorist@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 285d
lmao
Obamakitten@lemdro.id · 1 pts · 284d
FrameXX@discuss.tchncs.de · 1 pts · 294d
Webp is actually good format AFAIK better than the traditional alternatives it's just that it doesn't have such wide support and jpeg-xl is superior in many areas.
lalilulelo@lemmy.ml · 16 pts · 296d
Is xl better than webp?
black0ut@pawb.social · 53 pts · 296d
Yes. It loads faster, it has integrated quality levels that increase while loading (so a web hoster doesn't need to have 5 different copies of the same image at different qualities), it has better compression and it also supports more features. It can also be lossless. Most importantly, jpeg can be converted to jpeg xl losslessly, and it will have the benefits of jpeg xl.
RightEdofer@lemmy.ca · 23 pts · 296d
brbposting@sh.itjust.works · 3 pts · 295d
That’s so cool, the integrated quality levels
taaz@biglemmowski.win · 34 pts · 296d
fyi you have toggled the setting that marks you as a bot account, as such your content will not show for some percent of people that have bots hidden
lalilulelo@lemmy.ml · 8 pts · 296d
Oh what? How is that even done? I’m using thunder iOS client. Will try to find the setting there…
lalilulelo@lemmy.ml · 8 pts · 296d
Ok found it! Thanks for telling :)
commander@lemmy.world · 9 pts · 296d
Sentience reached. Evidence of singularity and people just waltzing by blind
antonim@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 6 pts · 296d
Hmm, you're still marked as a bot on my end. Maybe it takes a while to update outside of your native instance.
lalilulelo@lemmy.ml · 1 pts · 295d
I hope so, i instantly saw it gone when I toggled it. Let’s see
antonim@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 1 pts · 295d
Now it's updated, you're human again :)
ninth_plane@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 296d
Neither is as good as jpegXP
muusemuuse@sh.itjust.works · 5 pts · 296d
Give up already and install jpegVista.
cupcakezealot@piefed.blahaj.zone · 0 pts · 296d
bmp and tif are better than webp. literally anything is better than webp
pastermil@sh.itjust.works · 14 pts · 296d
That's one good news.
cupcakezealot@piefed.blahaj.zone · 13 pts · 296d
the webp will continue until moral improves
phoenixz@lemmy.ca · 1 pts · 295d
What's wrong with webp, exactly, besides maybe some systems still not supporting a decades old format?
skeezix@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 294d
JXL rules. webp drools.
GreenKnight23@lemmy.world · 7 pts · 296d
this is what happens when corpos take over your standards and compliance boards.
wreckedcarzz@lemmy.world · -2 pts · 296d
So we made lossy the norm, but - let me blow your mind - what if we make lossy BIGGER?
colonelp4nic@lemmy.world · 32 pts · 296d
JpegXL offers lossless compression, too
wreckedcarzz@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 296d
You win this time, bigger thing!
glowie@infosec.pub · 3 pts · 296d
Bossy compression
wreckedcarzz@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 296d
🅱️ossy