Why are we sending someone to “Extra Hell” for making an improved image format that has better compression and is an overall improvement over all 3 of the existing formats it replaces (jpeg, png, gif)?
Shouldn’t this apply to everyone the companies who refused to adopt it, thus breaking every normal image workflow? (Same thing can be said about JXL)
Because the reason webp/webm is trash is that it uses proprietary codecs, which some software companies don’t want to include support for. It’s google’s attempt to control every format used on the web.
We already have JXL, which is better than webp at everything it does, it’s not proprietary, and the main reason it’s still not widely supported is because google spent years trying to bury it and intentionally not offering support for it and prioritizing its own webp.
WebP isn’t proprietary. It’s based on the VP9 video codec, which is completely open source and royalty free, and currently maintained by the same people who made AV1.
Kind of a tangent, but while the png format uses lossless compression, you do not know that the .png you have in front of you is lossless from the filename; image softwares can and do support preprocessing an image with lossy algorithms to improve the file size.
This is sort of unlike flac for audio – it is technically also possible, but hardly anyone would do it, since the only reason to use flac is for lossless compression.
I get the impression that .png is used alongside .jpg as a general image format, although i don’t really know.
You also don’t know if your .png file has an alpha channel or not – might have been made without one.
I’d say the knowledge about webp’s benefits is not mainstream at all, I learned about it last week from a random YouTube video. So when people download a file that isn’t working as expected they don’t know who to be mad at so they make memes like this.
.png supports pretty extreme compression, while a jpeg can also be lossless. The extensions tell you nothing except which family of algorithms was used to encode/compress/store them.
Webp though, webp is only used for the internet. I mean, you could use it other places, I guess.
You’re an “expert in image processing” but don’t understand the fundamental difference between the .jpg and .png image formats or the encoding and compression algorithms underpinning them? I find that doubtful.
.png only compresses efficiently when used as intended, which is for screenshots or other images with large areas of solid colors, where each pixel is most likely the same color value as its neighbors. In this use case, it’s much more efficient than .jpg. However, .jpg is much more efficient than .png when it’s used as it’s intended; encoding images of the real world, like images taken with a digital camera, where each pixel has a slightly different color value than the ones next to it.
You can test this yourself by taking a picture with your phone’s camera, then copying the image, converting the copy to the other file format, then comparing the file sizes. Next, repeat the process with a screenshot of a web page or a simple Paint drawing. You’ll see that the camera image is smaller as a .jpg but the screenshot is smaller as a .png.
Why are we sending someone to “Extra Hell” for making an improved image format that has better compression and is an overall improvement over all 3 of the existing formats it replaces (jpeg, png, gif)?
Shouldn’t this apply to
everyonethe companies who refused to adopt it, thus breaking every normal image workflow? (Same thing can be said about JXL)Edit: fix vague wording
Because the reason webp/webm is trash is that it uses proprietary codecs, which some software companies don’t want to include support for. It’s google’s attempt to control every format used on the web.
We already have JXL, which is better than webp at everything it does, it’s not proprietary, and the main reason it’s still not widely supported is because google spent years trying to bury it and intentionally not offering support for it and prioritizing its own webp.
WebP isn’t proprietary. It’s based on the VP9 video codec, which is completely open source and royalty free, and currently maintained by the same people who made AV1.
Because they have a poor user experience with an OS and applications that have chosen not to support it properly, and blame the image format for this
It’s not an improvement over PNG.
No one uses it and even if they did, you’d never know since there isn’t a .webl or .webpl to differentiate lossless.
You know a PNG in lossless, you know a jpg is lossy. webp should just be assumed lossy 100% of the time.
Kind of a tangent, but while the png format uses lossless compression, you do not know that the .png you have in front of you is lossless from the filename; image softwares can and do support preprocessing an image with lossy algorithms to improve the file size.
This is sort of unlike flac for audio – it is technically also possible, but hardly anyone would do it, since the only reason to use flac is for lossless compression.
I get the impression that .png is used alongside .jpg as a general image format, although i don’t really know.
You also don’t know if your .png file has an alpha channel or not – might have been made without one.
I’d say the knowledge about webp’s benefits is not mainstream at all, I learned about it last week from a random YouTube video. So when people download a file that isn’t working as expected they don’t know who to be mad at so they make memes like this.
How to determine if webp is lossless? Old format easy, jpg vs. png.
As an expert in image processing:
.png supports pretty extreme compression, while a jpeg can also be lossless. The extensions tell you nothing except which family of algorithms was used to encode/compress/store them.
Webp though, webp is only used for the internet. I mean, you could use it other places, I guess.
You’re an “expert in image processing” but don’t understand the fundamental difference between the .jpg and .png image formats or the encoding and compression algorithms underpinning them? I find that doubtful.
.png only compresses efficiently when used as intended, which is for screenshots or other images with large areas of solid colors, where each pixel is most likely the same color value as its neighbors. In this use case, it’s much more efficient than .jpg. However, .jpg is much more efficient than .png when it’s used as it’s intended; encoding images of the real world, like images taken with a digital camera, where each pixel has a slightly different color value than the ones next to it.
You can test this yourself by taking a picture with your phone’s camera, then copying the image, converting the copy to the other file format, then comparing the file sizes. Next, repeat the process with a screenshot of a web page or a simple Paint drawing. You’ll see that the camera image is smaller as a .jpg but the screenshot is smaller as a .png.
Is this a very niche copypasta that I’m unaware of?
Nothing the other guy said contradicts this? Nor shows a lack of understanding this?
Yeah they didn’t say anything about efficiency lol, where the hell did all that come from
png also compresses better when you lower the color depth, the number of colors. And you forgot png has alpha which is a big deal IMO.