4 ms·

> But that is not nearly enough for an image format to reach widespread adoption I use WEBP extensively but WEBP has a major flaw: it can do both lossy and los

> But that is not nearly enough for an image format to reach widespread adoption I use WEBP extensively but WEBP has a major flaw: it can do both lossy and lossless. That's the most fucktarded thing to ever do for an image compression format. I don't understand the level of confusion and cluelessness that had to happen for such a dumb choice to have been made. I've got an entire process around determining and classifying WEBP depending on whether they're lossless or lossy. In the past we had JPG our PNG: life was good. Simple. Easy. Then dumbfucks decided that it made sense to cram both lossy and lossless under the same umbrella. > They also want to ensure far future access to their precious photos, when formats like JPEG2000 or even WebP might be long gone. That however shall never be an issue. You can still open, today, old obscure formats from the DOS days. Even custom ones only use by a very select few software back then. It's not as if we didn't have emulators, converters, etc. and it's all open source. Opening old WEBP files in the future shall never ever be a problem. Determining if it's a lossy or lossless WEBP for non-technical users, however... ; )

reaperducer 1y ago
That however shall never be an issue. You can still open, today, old obscure formats from the DOS days. Even custom ones only use by a very select few software back then. Certainly not true. One example: I have many thousands of photos from my Sony digital camera that cannot be opened by any current operating system without installing third-party software. I'm lucky that the camera also output JPEG versions as it saved, so I'm able to view the JEPG thumbnails, then drag the Sony version into my photo editor of choice.
jacobgkau 1y ago
> In the past we had JPG our PNG: life was good. Simple. Easy. Except for if you wanted a compressed image with transparency for the web, in which case you had to sacrifice one of those two things or use a different format besides those two. > Then dumbfucks decided that it made sense to cram both lossy and lossless under the same umbrella. > I don't understand the level of confusion and cluelessness that had to happen for such a dumb choice to have been made. Besides many end users not caring which one it is as long as they recognize the file type and can open it, I found a few interesting reasons for having both in the same format from a simple web search. One was the possibility of having a lossy background layer with a lossless foreground layer (particularly in an animation). JPEG XL also decided to support either lossless or lossy compression, so it wasn't just WebP that decided it made sense.

reaperducer 1y ago

That however shall never be an issue. You can still open, today, old obscure formats from the DOS days. Even custom ones only use by a very select few software back then. Certainly not true. One example: I have many thousands of photos from my Sony digital camera that cannot be opened by any current operating system without installing third-party software. I'm lucky that the camera also output JPEG versions as it saved, so I'm able to view the JEPG thumbnails, then drag the Sony version into my photo editor of choice.

jacobgkau 1y ago

> In the past we had JPG our PNG: life was good. Simple. Easy. Except for if you wanted a compressed image with transparency for the web, in which case you had to sacrifice one of those two things or use a different format besides those two. > Then dumbfucks decided that it made sense to cram both lossy and lossless under the same umbrella. > I don't understand the level of confusion and cluelessness that had to happen for such a dumb choice to have been made. Besides many end users not caring which one it is as long as they recognize the file type and can open it, I found a few interesting reasons for having both in the same format from a simple web search. One was the possibility of having a lossy background layer with a lossless foreground layer (particularly in an animation). JPEG XL also decided to support either lossless or lossy compression, so it wasn't just WebP that decided it made sense.