>link clearly says it's a jpg file
>it's actually a webp file

>>105646387 (OP)
This is a google cdn thing

>>105646387 (OP)
It's because of the CDNs. They re-compress the original content in-route to your IP. So much for TLS/SSL preventing in-route modification, huh?

If you use firefox you can toggle a setting in about:config to turn off webp support. Then the origin server will send the original file. For now anyway. The only thing this broke last I checked was youtube thumbnails. Since google insists on only serving webp and no longer serves non-webp images at all.

>>105646387 (OP)
skill issue

>>105646387 (OP)
this is how the windows fag learns that file extensions are basically useless vanity tags

>>105646405
>google insists on only serving their own format for thumbnails
to be fair why wouldnt they? google loves to save bandwidth and space, so why use jpg over webp? cuz some /g/ faggots hate it for weird reasons?

>>105646463
yep i never got the hate myself. because it's really the fault of 4chan for not implementing it, and your file system for not rendering it.
it'd be like hating on the png format just because 4chan didnt let you use it.
there are downsides to webp though, and i understand why an imageboard wouldnt implement it. something with continued saves and reposts losing the data over time.
another ironic thing i find funny is the web being bloated with huge videos and shit but 50x50 images have to be optimized. kek, they do what they can i suppose.

>>105646463
For the same reason apple should be punished for trying to force their gay ass proprietary charger plugins - it makes life inconvenient for literally everyone.

>>105646463
The problem is that webp is a misleading format, and its lossy version is terrible
You don't know if you are downloading a loseless or a lossy image by the extension (like you could by png and jpg), and if you get the lossy version it's blurry and will degrade after being shared a few times

>>105646463
neither bandwidth and space are an issue these days
even shithole countries have good speed and cheap drives
>BUT... MUST SAVE MUH ENVIRONMENT! THINK OF THE TREES!
no big corp gives a shit about it

>>105646387 (OP)
many such cases

>>105646405
There's also the "Don't accept webp/avif" plugin which will fall back to those formats if there isn't an original available.

>>105646463
No clue what these images are about but the right one is much better

>>105646463
>CDN modifying content from website in real time. Even though preventing this is the entire point of forcing everyone over to https
>dur hur you just have the file format

The file format is shit. It doesn't save them money. Bandwidth+space is cheaper than ever. The entire point is vendor lock-in and attempting to bully everyone into accepting a new file format for no other reason than forcing them to update hardware and software.

But I don't care about that. I care about the fact that they're modifying content in-route and instead of focusing on that huge issue people like you try to derail discussion into what amounts to a console war over file formats. If they can modify an image and serve it without the end user's web browser throwing up massive warnings they can do it with text, code and anything else. It's proof they have the ability to censor and insert exploits in real time.

Meanwhile, someone hosting a webpage with nothing but pure HTML on http has to deal with a massive WARNING WARNING WARNING SPOOKY HACKERS THIS PAGE IS NOT SAFE message in the two major browser engines. Since you know. http is suddenly not secure even when you're not accepting user input. Gotta force everyone to sign up for a certificate for "safety". Even though the above proves they aren't worth a fuck anyway and the "encryption" is totally useless. Especially when you're handing a copy of the private keys over to the CDN to avoid being ddos'ed off the web. From unknown people that just happen to have unlimited amount of bandwidth.

I wonder who could be doing it? Can't be the people with a vested interest in selling anti-ddos services. No sir. Let's just blame teenagers and the Russians.

>>105646499
How are webp making your life truly inconvenient? The charger thing I get and obviously agree, but the other bit makes no sense. Personally I use jpg/png whenever needed, but don't strive away from webp or avif if it's unavoidable, worst case I'll just convert them as it's quick and low skill.
Can post webp no issue everywhere too, the only place causing trouble being 4chan which is a site problem as it's behind.
>>105646485
>the fault of 4chan for not implementing it
>your file system for not rendering it.
Bingo. 4chin supports webm, vp8 and 9, so why not webp, too? Hell, I managed to solve windows thumbnail issues for webm, webp or avif files, so anyone else should be able to.
>>105646504
Or in other words it's a user/uploader problem. The format gives people a choice, and if the user decides to make a dumb choice the codec is terrible? It's annoying for the end user, sure, but how much will that really become relevant?

>>105646664
>Can post webp no issue everywhere too
Far from everywhere.

>>105646672
What obscure shit are you using that you can't? All the normiefag shit supports it, including all my funny phone messaging services. Hell, the latter even support AV1 no problem since everyone I know uses android and isn't an apple cuck.

>>105646447
>>105646463
I don't think I really get what these images are trying to say but I find all these body types attractive.

>>105646664
>The format gives people a choice
A choice to hide the real format of the image
>if the user decides to make a dumb choice
The sites make the dumb choice of providing the lossy version, and the user would need to use a external tool to check every image if he wants to avoid that
>how much will that really become relevant?
In some years people will become aware of the webp degradation as much as they became of jpeg artifacts

>>105646387 (OP)
With the exception of some images there's no real benefit to using JPG over Webp anymore. JPG looks like dogshit and 10 year old computers don't have any problem with the increased encode/decode complexity of Webp. Hell even 15 year old junk like a T420 laptop would probably be able to handle Webp like a champ.

You don't even need to be a rocket scientist to see the glaring difference. Open up an image in GIMP, save it at quality 80 with Webp and then try to match the file size with JPG. I'll do picrel just to prove a point.

>>105646799
If I remember right, Webp is based on VP8, right? Sure explains why it's so disgustingly piss easy to decode for any hardware, esp modern one. AVIF meanwhile is obviously a good bit harder generally speaking, but man one of the biggest issues I've noticed is that folders that have them take forever to sort my date and such. Decided to convert those into jpgs for the fuck of it, the folder INSTANTLY sorting the moment I removed the AVIF files. Makes me wonder how webp would fare in this regard.

Both about 100 KB and to be even more fair I used chroma quarter resolution for the JPG. Just from looking at the green door thingie you can immediately tell JPG has made everything look like dogshit. It gets much worse when you look into the hallway.

https://files.catbox.moe/m6z4uk.webp

Remember this is quality 80 of Webp, a high quality setting where JPG and Webp often achieve parity with each other. It gets much much worse at quality 60 and often at quality 50 and below JPG cannot even match the file size.

comparing jpg vs webp is like comparing avc vs hevc
like yeah no shit the newer thing is better
i thought of comparing it to vp8 vs 9 but those two are WORLDS apart

>>105646387 (OP)
There's a plugin for that https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/image-forcer/

>>105647037
>there is an extension for this thing that could be done through a simple settings change
love bloatware for degenerate tech illiterates

>>105647046
I assume you're talking about disabling WebM entirely in about:config. That's not what this plugin does. The plugin modifies the Accept header so that only the mime type corresponding to the file extension is sent. This tricks sites into thinking that your browser only supports that image format.

>>105647037
There's also
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/dont-accept-webp/

>>105647630
>another garbage extension when all you have to do is change a config setting
fucking normalfags i swear to god

>>105647046
>>105647648
Why are you crying so hard because a dumb extension exists?

>>105646633
it compares women view of beauty to men

>>105646405
>They re-compress the original content in-route to your IP. So much for TLS/SSL preventing in-route modification, huh?
They clearly don't modify it "in-route" since TLS would indeed prevent that.
The server just has two versions and sends the smaller one if the client accepts it.

>>105647046
>>105647648
are you dumb? >>105647486

>>105646979
Depending on the image type it kind of is worlds apart. I know this is cherry picking but there's something about picrel that webp manages to compress really well.

This big ass image compressed to about 500KB. JPG failed to reach this file size.

https://files.catbox.moe/x8wuki.webp

>>105646485
Fuck you zoomer.
Webp and avif are from hell.
Please leave.

Best I could get with JPG was around 800KB and it looks like complete ass.

>>105648736
That's not "web application" if you need to post print ready images and without any other purpose than benchmarking some inane shit. Your logic is oxymoron. Kys.

>>105648761
To add: print ready wouldn't be compressed anyway so you still lose.

>>105648761
>>105648766
Irrelevant. I'm just pointing out that SOME not all images would benefit from webp adoption immensely. That 1.5MB image being reduced to just about 500KB would save a ridiculous amount of bandwidth per 100k users who download it. Hell it might still make a dent at 1k users desu senpai.

The longer these fucking boomers stick with JPG the more resources we're going to waste.

>>105646405
>If you use firefox you can toggle a setting in about:config to turn off webp support. Then the origin server will send the original file.
Lol no it will still send you a .webp image, firefox just won't render it anymore, resulting in broken pages. To actually disable webp you have to edit image accept http string or something like that. It's not included in */* for compatibility with older browsers and has to be explicitly allowed by the browser for the cdn to send it - for now. Last time I used firefox the config option was removed and the string was hardcoded into the xul.dll (weird huh?). You could still edit it by zero padding the extra symbols though. Some forks still have it user configurable.

>>105646721
The first one shows what men find attractive, the second shows what women think men find attractive, and the comments at the bottom are from men and women respectively.

My initial reading was quite different though, so the image is indeed confusing.

>>105646664
>How are webp making your life truly inconvenient?
I have to convert the image to jpg before using it in a shitpost on 4channel.org

>>105646387 (OP)
this but it's a jpeg_large file for some fucking reason

Ok but for real why doesn't 4chan add webp support already? It's getting tedious having to convert every image from everywhere else just to upload them to this place.

>>105646686
>"hurr where can't you post webp????"
>posted on 4chan where you can't post webp
google isn't sending their best

>>105649274
It's so people can't spam the site with low quality Google image search reposts.

>>105649274
Prior to the hack, 4chan servers were running on a FreeBSD installation that hadn't been updated since m00t left. If they wouldn't update that, do you really think they would bother adding support for more formats?

>>105652027
They added mp4 like a year ago.

>>105646387 (OP)
my router converts webp images to jpg automatically sorry you are retarded

>>105646387 (OP)

>>105649274
if 4chan adds .webp support, i will take every .webp image uploaded, convert it into an uncompressed PNG and reupload it

>4chan enables webp for 1 day
>immediately zero day exploited
Funny how that got memory holed.

>>105655314
JPG would also technically be a "mental illness" since it uses YCbCr similar to Webp.

Webp to PNG/jpeg converter addon for Firefox.

>>105656753
JPG is supported by every piece of software on the planet so it's fine

>>105656990
Compatibility-wise JPG does have an edge I'll admit but the list of stuff that does work with Webp keeps growing longer each year so maybe even the turbo boomers might want to look at the merits of >>105648736 more seriously

Browsers

Google Chrome
Mozilla Firefox (from version 65+)
Microsoft Edge (Chromium-based)
Opera
Brave
Vivaldi
Chromium (open-source base for Chrome and others)
Safari (support via WebKit in recent versions, WebP support added in Safari 14+)

Image Editors

Adobe Photoshop (via WebP plugin or built-in in latest versions)
GIMP (GNU Image Manipulation Program)
Paint.NET (with plugins)
IrfanView (with WebP plugin)
XnView / XnView MP
ImageMagick (command-line)
Krita
Photopea (web-based editor)
Image Viewers
IrfanView (with plugins)
XnView / XnView MP
FastStone Image Viewer
nomacs
JPEGView
Honeyview
Windows Photos (with recent updates)
macOS Preview (via third-party support or recent updates)
ImageGlass

General Programs / Software

libwebp (library for encoding/decoding WebP)
FFmpeg (supports WebP encoding/decoding)
Chromium-based apps (many use underlying Chromium engine)
VLC Media Player (for WebP animations or WebP images in media)
Paint.NET (via plugins)
Inkscape (via extensions for WebP)
Note:
Encoding support often depends on the program having WebP support built-in, or having plugins (like Photoshop or Paint.NET).
Decoding support is generally broader, especially in browsers and image viewers.

>>105648736
>>105657628
To be fair I can get pretty much the same result with PNG after just a few minutes of tinkering.

>>105657730
I fucked up with some of the dithering but that can be fixed pretty easily

>>105657737
>>105657730
Here, functionally the same image but with PNG and around 500KB. Could be optimized further.

>>105657730
>>105657787
Congrats, retard. That was in fact a lossless RGB webp and not a lossy YUV one :^)

[Parsed_ssim_0 @ 000001a1ac26ce40] SSIM R:1.000000 (inf) G:1.000000 (inf) B:1.000000 (inf) All:1.000000 (inf)

>>105658059
Cool, you should upload it here! Oh, wait...

>>105657730
What kind of dogshit lossy RGB compression tool are you even using that you couldn't hit 0.99 SSIM with nearly 1MB file size?

[Parsed_ssim_0 @ 000001b6bbae00c0] SSIM R:0.981235 (17.266408) G:0.983626 (17.858361) B:0.991719 (20.818965) All:0.985526 (18.394195)

>>105658069
TO BE FAIR you probably still can't upload mozjpeg encoded JPGs yet. I tried that years ago and if this has changed then I will genuinely be very impressed desu. Because mozjpeg actually does outperform webp in more images than standard libjpeg-turbo used by 99% of the web right now.

Last time this shit site would convert my mozjpeg uploads back into regular JPGs. I'll try again right now...

>Error: File too large.
YUP, upload failed. Fucking bullshit outdated webshiiiite.

webp files are only ever created to recompress shit for greedy websites; by definition they are bricked files and all websites should forbid their upload to prevent further data rot

>>105658220
Keep up with the thread retard, >>105648736 is fully lossless as shown by the SSIM result in >>105658059

>>105646447
>>105646463
shut the fuck up

>>105646447
I'm confused, the right is by any man's standard the more attractive of the two women, yet the image is implying all men want the left?

>go to alt search engine
>filter: .jpg only
>go to save image
>it's actually a .webp still lol

This shit annoyed me so much I wrote a script called fuckwebp and put it in my /bin folder.