• randomname@sh.itjust.works
      0·
      12 days ago

      Why does this even work though? WEBP and PNG are very different file formats yet for some reason this has always worked for me as well. Is windows automatically converting the files? I haven’t checked if changing the file extension changes the file size.

      • odelik@lemmy.today
        1·
        12 days ago

        WebP is an extended container around the RIFF file format, and contains the RIFF header info. So any container that is built off RIFF, or supports RIFF, can at least interpret the container data that is RIFF compatible and will lose anything that has been extended upon.

  • Thorry84@feddit.nl
    0·
    13 days ago

    I recently put in a lot of hours for a software system to be able to handle webp just as well as every other image format it already accepted. I put in a lot of work as well. Hadn’t heard about it for a while, but saw the feature release statement for the new version I knew my changes were in. It wasn’t on there. So I reached out to my contact and asked if there was an issue or did it get bumped to a later version or what? So she told me the marketing team that do the release statements decided not to include it. They stated for one, people already expect common formats to be handled. Saying you now handle a format looks bad, since people know you didn’t handle it before and were behind the curve. The second (probably more important) reason was nobody knew what webp even was and it’s only something technical people care about (they probably said nerds, but my contact translated). So no regular customer would be interested and it could only lead to confusion and questions.

    I hope somebody is happy with the work I put in tho. Somebody is going to drag a webp into the system and have it be accepted. Someday… I hope…

    • _stranger_@lemmy.world
      01·
      13 days ago
      1. Fuck those people for telling you this after you did the work
      2. Those reasons are hard-stop stupid. If they REALLY cared about the marketing they’d release it silently or add a “improvements to image format handling” line and leave it at that.
  • phantomwise@lemmy.mlEnglish
    0·
    12 days ago

    Wait am I the only one who actually likes WEBP and is cheering for JPEG to finally die ? 😭

    • JigglySackles@lemmy.world
      1·
      12 days ago

      If webp didn’t come from google I might cheer it. I refuse to adopt any standard made by google if I can help it. If google made it, they made it with some reason or ability to alter it that’s nefarious and anti consumer. They wouldn’t make an improved open standard that wasn’t going to allow them to do shady shit.

  • Olissipo@programming.dev
    0·
    13 days ago

    I’m working on a project which generates images in multiples sizes, and also converts to WEBP and AVIF.

    The difference in file size is significant. It might not matter to you, but it matters to a lot of people.

    Here’s an example (the filename is the width):

    Also, using the <picture></picture> element, if the users’ browsers don’t support (or block) AVIF/WEBP, the original format is used. No harm in using them.

    (I know this is a meme post, but some people are taking it seriously)

    • HeyListenWatchOut@lemmy.worldEnglish
      0·
      13 days ago

      I’ve mentioned this topic in regards to animated images, but don’t see as big a reason to push for static formats due to the overall relatively limited benefits other than wider gamut and marginally smaller file size (percentage wise they are significant, but 2KB vs 200KB is paltry on even a terrible connection in the 2000s).

      What I really wish is that we could get more browsers, sites, and apps to universally support more modern formats to replace the overly bloated terribly performing and never correctly pronounced animated formats like GIF with something else like AVIF, webm, webp (this was a roughly ~60MB GIF, and becomes a 1MB WEBP with better performance), or even something like APNG…

      Besides wider gamut, and better performance, the sizes are actually significant on all but the fastest connections and save sites on both storage and bandwidth at significant scale compared to the mere KB of change that a static modern asset has.

      This WEBP is only 800KB but only shows up on some server instances since not every Lemmy host supports embedding them :