4 ms·

I don't get the praise for webp either. Out of images I see, jpg has better details preserved than webp.

by Jigsy 3y ago

freitzkriesler2 3y ago
It's an annoying format that Google made that's proprietary and reinvents the wheel. Had Microsoft done this the tech world would be up in arms. When Google does it, it's OK. I have to add extensions to convert this crap when I want to download images. I hope that Google loses their dominance to Microsoft with AI.
- madars 3y ago
  webp is not proprietary. There is a patent grant https://groups.google.com/a/webmproject.org/g/webp-discuss/c/W4_j7Tlofv8 https://groups.google.com/a/webmproject.org/g/webp-discuss/c... and reference implementation is BSD-licensed.
- nayuki 3y ago
  You might be interested that Microsoft developed JPEG XR: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JPEG_XR https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JPEG_XR , https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/research/project/jpeg-xr/ https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/research/project/jpeg-xr/ . And in the past, they tried to shove Windows Media Video and Audio down our throats, which are inferior relatives of MPEG-4, AAC, FLAC, etc.
- halJordan 3y ago
  But you don't have to add extensions to convert this crap. You do that to yourself. If you quit making your life hard it would be so much easier, but probably less complaining- so i guess that's the trade off.
  - tedunangst 3y ago
    You do have to handle it though, and rarely when you want to. You click on a jpg link in your browser and save it, but the CDN invisibly converted it to webp. Which the program you want to edit the image in doesn't support. I didn't ask for webp. I didn't try to make this difficult.
    - NavinF 3y ago
      All modern image editors support webp
      - taway1237 3y ago
        Certainly not all, as the ones I'm using don't. Unless you have a very cherry-picked definition of "modern".
dchest 3y ago
The lossless format (where this bug's in) achieves amazing compression rates, compared to PNG.
- not2b 3y ago
  Yes, the main benefit of WEBP is for lossless compression, it's reported to be about 25% better, though this would depend on the image. For lossy, there's no reason I can see to prefer it over JPEG.
  - edflsafoiewq 3y ago
    The lossy format has alpha support, unlike JPEG.

I don't get the praise for webp either. Out of images I see, jpg has better details preserved than webp.

by Jigsy 3y ago

I don't get the praise for webp either. Out of images I see, jpg has better details preserved than webp.

It's an annoying format that Google made that's proprietary and reinvents the wheel. Had Microsoft done this the tech world would be up in arms. When Google does it, it's OK. I have to add extensions to convert this crap when I want to download images. I hope that Google loses their dominance to Microsoft with AI.

madars 3y ago
webp is not proprietary. There is a patent grant https://groups.google.com/a/webmproject.org/g/webp-discuss/c/W4_j7Tlofv8 https://groups.google.com/a/webmproject.org/g/webp-discuss/c... and reference implementation is BSD-licensed.
nayuki 3y ago
You might be interested that Microsoft developed JPEG XR: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JPEG_XR https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JPEG_XR , https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/research/project/jpeg-xr/ https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/research/project/jpeg-xr/ . And in the past, they tried to shove Windows Media Video and Audio down our throats, which are inferior relatives of MPEG-4, AAC, FLAC, etc.
halJordan 3y ago
But you don't have to add extensions to convert this crap. You do that to yourself. If you quit making your life hard it would be so much easier, but probably less complaining- so i guess that's the trade off.
- tedunangst 3y ago
  You do have to handle it though, and rarely when you want to. You click on a jpg link in your browser and save it, but the CDN invisibly converted it to webp. Which the program you want to edit the image in doesn't support. I didn't ask for webp. I didn't try to make this difficult.
  - NavinF 3y ago
    All modern image editors support webp
    - taway1237 3y ago
      Certainly not all, as the ones I'm using don't. Unless you have a very cherry-picked definition of "modern".

dchest 3y ago

The lossless format (where this bug's in) achieves amazing compression rates, compared to PNG.

not2b 3y ago
Yes, the main benefit of WEBP is for lossless compression, it's reported to be about 25% better, though this would depend on the image. For lossy, there's no reason I can see to prefer it over JPEG.
- edflsafoiewq 3y ago
  The lossy format has alpha support, unlike JPEG.