Don't think you can just slip in a thicc Dr. Manhattan and not have anyone notice :awooga:
:volcel-judge: :manhattan: :volcel-judge:
he is well guarded, do not even think to try.
The annoying thing about it is so many sites are pushing it because it is technically better than PNG in terms of quality vs file size, but so many other programs and sites didn't get the memo. Some sites won't let you upload webp, some programs can view and edit it but not by default, some just don't work, I think Windows has issues displaying thumbnails of it, Google images reverse search yells at it, and sho on and sho forth.
It's not webp's fault, he's just a little guy!
My favorite art program supports dragging images straight into the canvas to open as a new canvas, or into the layers to add as a new layer. It can take .webp in the canvas and open it just fine, but try to directly insert it as a layer does nothing. So I gotta open as a new work, Ctrl+A Ctrl+X, Ctrl+Shift+Tab, Ctrl+V just to put a webp as a new layer. And of course it can't even export as a webp either.
The worst thing about separate PNG and JPG is most people, even most developers, don't understand that a solid-color or very repetitive image will be compressed to a far smaller file size using PNG than JPG, despite being completely lossless.
Webp rocks. Blame apple for being petty and refusing to implement it because it's a Google developed format
I use webp almost exclusively in my VTT, because it strikes an elegant balance between low size and high resolution.
Also, fuck Apple.
-
It's designed to be more memory-efficient but isn't
-
By converting jpgs to webps instead of leaving them alone, you add unnecessary cycles and have to store two instead of one
-
Made by Gulag
oh I thought it was just a container that could contain jpg or png tbh. but I guess it has its own algos for lossy and lossless
idk take it up with pictrs
Whenever I convert a png to a lossless webp the file size seems to get cut in half.
We consider this study to be inconclusive when it comes to the question of whether WebP and/or JPEG XR outperform JPEG by any significant margin.
emphasis mine
-
How I learned to stop hating webp and love the format:
- Installed plugin support for all my image applications
Now I'm sitting back and enjoying the image format that does everything in one.
It annoys me because Tumblr had stopped using gifs and pushes animated webps and there's literally like one gallery app on Android that's capable of showing them.
It's called Aves and it's not quite what used to in other regards.
.gifv sitting here in the corner, malding over the time imgur spent making the website read mp4 as gifv.
What is webp? Is it a container or an image codec?
nevermind I just looked it up
Lossy WebP compression uses predictive coding to encode an image, the same method used by the VP8 video codec to compress keyframes in videos. Predictive coding uses the values in neighboring blocks of pixels to predict the values in a block, and then encodes only the difference.
Lossless WebP compression uses already seen image fragments in order to exactly reconstruct new pixels. It can also use a local palette if no interesting match is found.
A WebP file consists of VP8 or VP8L image data, and a container based on RIFF.
