• Thorry84@feddit.nl
    5·
    3 months 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
      41·
      3 months 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.
      • Thorry84@feddit.nl
        5·
        3 months ago

        Maybe I worded it incorrectly. The feature was released in that version. They just didn’t mention it in the release statement they put out to their customers. I’m sure there’s some changelog somewhere people can dig into where it says something like what you mentioned. Or it can just be under “Various small improvements” which they always add as a catch-all.

        So I’m happy, I did the job and got paid. Everyone I worked with was happy. And the feature got released. It’s was just a let down it didn’t get mentioned at all, even though I put quite a lot of work into it.

      • jj4211@lemmy.world
        1·
        3 months ago

        I will second the suggestion at something like “expanded support for more image formats”. One of my responsibilities is rolling the development log into customer release notes and I agree with the “changes that highlight a previous shortcoming can look bad”, and make accommodations for that all the time. I also try to make sure every developer that contributed can recognize their work in the release notes.

        “Expanded image format support” seems like something that if a customer hasn’t noticed, they would assume “oh they must have some customer with a weird proprietary format that they added but have to be vague about”. If it were related to customer requests, I would email the specific customers highlighting their need for webp is addressed after pushing the release notes

    • Lemminary@lemmy.world
      1·
      3 months ago

      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.

      And that was me! I mean, not with your software but with someone else’s years ago. Still, in a weird anachronistic karma sort of way, thank you for caring.

    • lostbit@feddit.nlEnglish
      0·
      3 months ago

      a bit related.

      Was working for a comparison engine. Back in the day things where slow. But i made it lightning fast. Pretty proud.

      Untill a few weeks later the manager comes up, and tells me to make it SLOWER!

      apparently users thought it was suss that it was so fast and the results therefore where fake…

      • saltesc@lemmy.world
        1·
        3 months ago

        Wait till you find out what’s inside when you change Office files from .***x to .zip

    • randomname@sh.itjust.works
      0·
      3 months 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
        2·
        3 months 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.

  • phantomwise@lemmy.mlEnglish
    1·
    3 months ago

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

    • JigglySackles@lemmy.world
      1·
      3 months 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.

  • Fiona@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    1·
    3 months ago

    webp is absofuckinglutely inferior to JPEG-XL and that one is where you actually have that problem. I’m literally providing an avif-fallback on my website, because otherwise pretty much no browser would support anything.

    (Speaking of it, avif is also superior to webp.)

  • Noxy@pawb.socialEnglish
    1·
    3 months ago

    fucking Telegram automatically converts any webp sent in a message to a fucking sticker

    I didn’t want that. I want the ability to view the image, including zooming in and panning, and telegram forcing it into a sticker kills that completely

  • StarMerchant938@lemmy.world
    0·
    3 months ago

    As someone who sometimes needs a quick and dirty stock image for my work, webp is the bane of my existence. The work computers won’t let me visit sites or install programs/extensions to convert the image, and my document processing programs have no fucking clue what to do with the format. There is an option in Microsoft edge to edit image, and it will dump the result as a .png which is the only workaround I’ve found.

    • edgemaster72@lemmy.worldEnglish
      0·
      3 months ago

      When I save as an image and it comes up as webp I just change the extension dropdown to all files and change the extension to .png in the filename box, hasn’t failed for me yet

      • Hoimo@ani.social
        0·
        3 months ago

        Does that actually change the file, or will it still break when your software can’t handle webp? Because I did that to a webp, but Firefox still shows it’s a webp (in the tab name), probably based on magic byte. I don’t have any viewers that can’t display webp though, and I think they’re all smart enough to go by magic byte.

  • Olissipo@programming.dev
    0·
    3 months 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
      1·
      3 months 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 :

      • Olissipo@programming.dev
        0·
        3 months ago

        but 2KB vs 200KB is paltry on even a terrible connection in the 2000s).

        You still need to resize the images and choose the right ones (even if only for the device’s performance).

        So we might as well do that small extra step and add conversion to the process.

        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…

        Isn’t that the users’ fault? And of the websites for allowing those huge GIFs.

        Apparently browsers have supported MP4 for a long time.

        https://caniuse.com/mpeg4

        • SpaghettiYeti@lemmy.world
          0·
          3 months ago

          How are you auto converting images to webp?? What is this magic. My company uses Visual Studio 2022 and our creative guy is having to save everything manually in multiple formats. Then our devs put in the webp first with a jpeg fallback, but it’s all so manual.

          • Olissipo@programming.dev
            0·
            3 months ago

            Funny you call it magic, what actually does the conversion is Imagick.

            In my project I have it integrated in the upload process. You upload a PNG/JPG and it does its thing. Since it’s written in PHP (my project), and PHP has an extension to call Imagick, I didn’t need to write any complicated code.

            You can see on this page if your programming language of choice has any integration with Imagick.

            But there’s always the command line interface. Depending on your process it may be easier to create a script to “convert all images in a folder”, for example.

    • Thorry84@feddit.nl
      1·
      3 months ago

      How is the size difference after gzip compression? Probably pretty much the same, but I wonder how large the difference is then. Since a lot of folk make sure the contents is gzipped when served to the user.

      • Olissipo@programming.dev
        0·
        3 months ago

        Even using the highest compression levels, barely any difference. Not worth it

        If I understand correctly gzip, brotli and similar are best used to compress text.

        Font files also shouldn’t be compressed. A TTF file compresses a bit, but a WOFF2 file will be even smaller than that (and WOFF2 also doesn’t compress well). So might as well use WOFF/WOFF2

      • AdrianTheFrog@lemmy.worldEnglish
        1·
        3 months ago

        Webp is supported in browsers. Jxl is not, unfortunately.

        (Well, I have the Firefox extension for it, but most people can’t see them…)

        People should still use it tho, with the fallback of webp or avif

        • ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca
          1·
          3 months ago

          Firefox just hasn’t enabled the setting (well they haven’t made the setting enable jxl support yet even though the setting and support has been there for years). This means their forks support it, that’s why I switched to Waterfox

          Safari supports it

          Chromium removed support for it 2 years ago to push webp but it’s just a reminder to not use Chromium browsers

      • Aux@feddit.ukEnglish
        01·
        3 months ago

        Because jxl is a bunch of bollocks. There’s no way it will gain any support any time soon.

    • Valmond@lemmy.world
      0·
      3 months ago

      Is the quality the same? If so how do you know? I mean it’s better, I’m just curious.

  • Lucy :3@feddit.org
    0·
    3 months ago

    Tbh, for myself I either want lossless (eg. professional photographs for an app) or don’t care about size, due to small volume (eg. my own pics and vids) and also kinda want the originals. And in today’s time, bandwidth isn’t lacking (for most people, including me). So everything’s just a png.

  • Rokin@lemm.eeEnglish
    01·
    3 months ago

    No webp for me, just because Google is pushig it and that is suspect.