4 ms·
If you do creative work countless tools just don’t support webp, AVIF or HEIF. It’s so prominent running into files you can’t open in your tools that I have a
by whywhywhywhy 3y ago
If you do creative work countless tools just don’t support webp, AVIF or HEIF.
It’s so prominent running into files you can’t open in your tools that I have a right click convert to PNG context menu
- jiggawatts 3y agoThey don’t support it because Chromium doesn’t. Because Chromium doesn’t support it, Electron doesn’t. Because Electron doesn’t, Teams and other modern web apps and web sites don’t either, etc… If Google just added JPEG XL support instead then it would be… a supported alternative to JPEG. You’re saying working in that is a waste of time because… it’s not supported.
- n2d4 3y agoChromium does support WebP and AVIF, yet parent's tools don't.
- The_Colonel 3y agoMaybe because WebP and AVIF are actually not that great image formats. WebP has been critiqued as a very mediocre improvement over JPEG all the way since its introduction. These formats are in Chromium because of Google politics, not because of their technical merit.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- modeless 3y agoThere's a lot more to format support than Chromium. There's a pretty strong meme out there on the Internet that webp is evil despite being supported in all browsers for years because there's still a lot of software out there that never added support and people get annoyed when an image fails to open.
- redeeman 3y agomaybe proprietary software just isnt so good?
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- lxgr 3y agoI don't think it's evil, but I just don't think it's very good either. And a graphics format better be damn good (i.e. much, not just a little bit, better than what it's hoping to replace) if it aspires to become widely supported across applications, operating systems, libraries etc.
- account42 3y agoFormat quality has fuck all to do with widespread support. Widespread support comes from either widespread use (forcing companies to implement support) or from enabling new things.
- jug 3y agoAt least now with Jpegli, this will surely be the nail in the coffin for WebP? The article has 35% compression improvements over JPEG mentioned and that's at least as much as usually thrown around when discussing WebP.
- account42 3y agoAnd let's not forget that the advantages of WebP are already often way overstated compared to how things really match up when you don't just really on shitty metrics to pretend that images have the same quality.
- JyrkiAlakuijala 3y agoI was very careful not to overstate WebP lossless quality. I compressed the originals with zopflipng and pngcrush before stating figures (-26 %). If I had just used the internet quality images, WebP lossless would have improved size by -42 %. Yet another 'marketing textbook' way to overstate -42 % is to turn it into 'loading speed': 1/(1-0.42) = 72 % faster. None of this was made for the lossless and the most conservative estimate was shown. I didn't do any hacking or cherry picking to produce the number and I had several internal verification approaches to be correct.
- whywhywhywhy 3y agoTalking about things that don’t pass through webtech photoshop, after effects, illustrator, Final Cut, davinchi, 3d software, rendering engines etc
- account42 3y agoNot a fan of any of these video keyframe base image formats but if your tools don't support them by now then you really should get better tools.