3 ms·

There'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 brow

There'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 ago
maybe proprietary software just isnt so good?
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
lxgr 3y ago
I 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 ago
  Format 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 ago
At 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 ago
  And 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 ago
    I 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.

redeeman 3y ago

maybe proprietary software just isnt so good?

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

lxgr 3y ago

I 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 ago
Format 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 ago

At 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 ago
And 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 ago
  I 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.