Thread 105672423

Every browser and search engine should block webp by default, or in 60 years we'll still be in the same situation of 0 programs supporting webp while every website insists on using it to save a few pennies

As usual OP is a FUCKING retard with shit for brains.

This webp is lossless and around 500KB compared to around 1.5MB of picrel PNG. You can verify it with SSIM.

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

>>105672647
Imagine having a trojan horse image format, where outside it's loseless, but inside every site uses lossy to reduce bandwidth even further and you don't know by the extension

>>105672748
I accept your concession

>>105672767
You can do as much tribalism as you want for it, doesn't change the fact it's been used in a way that's worse than jpeg artifacts

>>105672789
PEBCAK like your entire thread. You just found out that webp can compress images without any loss in quality didn't you? Don't worry you're not alone since there's going to be a sea of morons who will happily die for Israel soon.

>>105672865
oh, a bot

>>105672865
Problem exists in the CDNs, and supporting webp makes users vulnerable to it

You can strawman and change subject as much as you want, in few years people will notice webp decay as much as they noticed jpeg artifacts

>>105672647
The overwhelming majority of webp images are lossy because the entire motivation for using webp is to reduce web hosting costs. If webm was lossless-only then of course it would be fine, but then no one would use it. They'd just keep using jpeg.

>>105672919
Vulnerable to what? All image formats have had security vulnerabilities and Webp is no different. It's already been patched for a long time now so CDNs should have any problem automatically using lossless webp mode anymore.

Or are you saying there's a bulletproof image format? Which one would that be? I'm genuinely curious.

>jpeg-xl v0.3.2 is affected by a heap buffer overflow in /lib/jxl/coeff_order.cc ReadPermutation. When decoding a malicous jxl file using djxl, an attacker can trigger arbitrary code execution or a denial of service.

https://app.opencve.io/cve/CVE-2021-28026

>>105672930
Because Webp lossless used to have a security vulnerability just like jpeg xl does right now. The former has been patched for years and CDNs can now safely the lossless mode.

The image in >>105672647 achieves LOWER file size and literally bo loss in quality with lossless webp vs lossy webp.

>>105672972
Perhaps if you stop making strawmen you can understand what I said

>>105672972
>the guy defending webp is an schizo
How unexpected

>>105673031
I already said PEBCAK and it's not like I'm alone in thinking this. The dev team at GIMP recently tard proofed the webp export option when it detects that using lossy will result in a higher file size and worse quality if the lossy encoder is used instead of the lossless one.

Go ahead and give it a spin, attempt to save the PNG at >>105672647 with a webp lossy parameter of quality 80 in the webp export option. GIMP will detect that you're being a fucking retard and save it to a lossless webp file.

>>105673100
The majority of web images are lossy, and you can pretty much see the decay on sites like imgur already
You can preach about how your solution is perfect and everyone uses it wrongly, doesn't matter

>>105672423 (OP)
>0 programs supporting webp
Retard it's literally just 4chan not supporting WebP.

In posts. Because 4chan already supports it for ads. Yep, that's how little a shit hiro gives.

>>105672423 (OP)
Nigga everything supports webp as of 2 years ago. Are you on Windows XP or something?

>>105672423 (OP)

> 0 programs supporting webp

Stop with all the bullshit about the 0 support for the newest formats.

For example, Adobe Photoshop supports both AVIF and JPEG XL now:

https://helpx.adobe.com/photoshop/using/whats-new/2025-6.html

And it supported WebP since Photoshop 23.2:

https://helpx.adobe.com/photoshop/kb/support-webp-image-format.html

You know, of 4chin was supporting webp there would be no such whining. When OP claiming "nothing supports webp" he only means 4shart.

>png jpg gif all 100% supported in every known program since 1995

webp does not have 100% support like other formats enjoy. everyone has to change their shit because some faggots came up with a new format.

meanwhile halfwits go around saying "it just works" and "why dont you love it"

>SomeThing just works
>Corp X pushes OtherThing for their own benefit
>"Come on goys why dont you love my thing?"

>>105673755
>https://caniuse.com/?search=webp
>All tracked: 98.87%
Nobody cares about 1% of people (which are probably mainly bots and crawlers) not having access to webp.
>inb4 this is just browsers
Every user app is a browser nowadays.

>>105673005
>CDNs can now safely the lossless mode
Anon's point isn't that they can't use lossless .webp's, it's that they won't.
And they're right, lossy results in a smaller filesize, which means they use less server space to host. Plus, degradation won't significantly impact the images until after they've achieved their purpose. All the same reasons CDNs use .jpeg now.

>>105672423 (OP)
i agree fuck webp

Avif won

>>105672423 (OP)
>supports lossless compression
>file format with terrible quality loss
retard

>>105673397
>Retard it's literally just 4chan not supporting WebP.
>In posts. Because 4chan already supports it for ads. Yep, that's how little a shit hiro gives.
I HATE THE ANTICHRIST
I HATE THE ANTICHRIST
I HATE THE ANTICHRIST

>>105672647
>You can verify it with SSIM.
why verify with ssim when you can just convert both to bitmap and check the hash of both files?
oh right, you are that daiz-tier schizo retard, it's not like you have a working brain or anything like that

>>105673891
>requires more computing power for encoding and decoding
>won

>>105673931
Not 100% true. If you have a $10,000 FPGA then it's all good.

>>105672423 (OP)
yes, and jewgle really needs to fucking re-add jpegxl support already
the reason they dont is simple: it's easier for them to absorb the extra bandwidth costs than it is for their competition
break the whole damn company up

>>105672748
yeah it is pretty retarded that they didn't make lossless webp and lossy webp two different filetypes

>>105674027
Do you seriously think Google would lose anything by people just not using webp?

>>105672423 (OP)
you're wrong about webp
but
why do we not widely support HEIC like apple devices? seems like it has no drawbacks

>>105675161
Supporting HEIC means you have to tongue mpeg-la's asshole (ie pay royalties).

>>105674091
It's not about what Google has to lose by not using webp
It's what the others have to lose by not using webp

To pass Google's Lighthouse test and improve your page ranking in search results Google mandates you use webp. It's the main reason why any of these sites use it. It's why all the images are still jpg/png just run through some webp converter on their pages. Anyone arguing it has other benefits is bullshitting.

Don't tell me google cares about bloat they do not

>>105673904
>supports loseless compression
>every cdn and company is using lossy for further penny accumulation
>you can't tell the difference without using a tool for every single image

>>105672423 (OP)
>we need to stop innovation because it's inconvenient to me!
stfu retarded nigger kill yourself

>>105675639
lol this

>>105675639
Good goy.
Trillion dollar companies can save bandwidth costs and increase the power costs for the end user to decode WEBP.

H.264, JPG, GIF and PNG are gods chosen formats.

>>105677254
How about us little guys paying like $10/month in exchange for just 3GB of data? That amounts to about 100MB per day so I don't mind if 2MB PNGs became 1 MB webp files desu. In fact I'd really appreciate it.

Also GIF is straight up ass being limited to 256 colors. Webp would be a huge leap from that limitation.

>>105675639
This dude 100% converted that picture from webp to jpg before posting it.

>>105677552
I love Umaru

webp support should me mandatory, that way there's no reason to cry about it

>>105675390
>To pass Google's Lighthouse test and improve your page ranking in search results Google mandates you use webp.
Not really. They recommend either webp or avif.

>>105673397
>In posts. Because 4chan already supports it for ads. Yep, that's how little a shit hiro gives.
Wow

>>105672423 (OP)
You are only mad about webp because 4chan doesn't support it. You should be mad about 4chan not webp.

>>105672647
I went all the way back to .gif.
It was good enough when computers and networks were 10,000 slower than they are now.

>>105672423 (OP)
Nastiest are webp with jpeg extension. I hate that so much.

>>105672423 (OP)
thats the whole point - they dont want you to 'steal' the image
as soon as webp becomes supported by everything they move on to something else

>>105672748
>>105674048
What's wrong with not knowing whether your image is lossless or lossy?

Because it was so much better with jpg.

>>105672647
Sure anon. That's why my browser tab is using 80 MB of memory.

>>105679582
feh doesn't have this problem