WebP

>>55507513
Google botnet

>>55507526
>image format
>botnet

jpeg just werks

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alliance_for_Open_Media

Why would I use webp when AV1 is a better codec?

>>55507590
That actually sounds very good

>>55507513
Mozilla doesn't want you to have nice things.

Browser support

>>55507513
Fuck you webp crap. apng master race.

because i already have tons of png and jpg wallpapers and don't intend to convert them to some obscure format no one's ever heard of/not supported at all

File: really.jpg (9KB, 194x194px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 194x194px

>>55507590
>founding partner Microsoft
>to avoid more patent and licensing battles that have been a big roadblock to innovation

>>55507746
Microsoft got burned by MPEG-LA and HEVC Advance patent pools, no surprise there

>>55507724
APNG can't even do everything WebP can do. I'm not saying it's worse at what it can do, in fact it's even better in that regard but you can't really compare the two.

>>55507739
>don't intend to convert them
Yeah but you could use WebP in the future
>some obscure format no one's ever heard of/not supported at all
>source: my ass

File: uiae.png (8KB, 847x63px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 847x63px

>>55507590

File: flif.png (190B, 352x304px) Image search: [Google]

190B, 352x304px

Make way peasant lossless image codecs! Real compression coming through

>>55507828
FLIF is a nice idea but no browser support.

>>55507577
kill yo' self

>>55507513
>>often much smaller filesize than JPEG/PNG/GIF
not by enough to make people bother. Plus, have you seen web design these days? They don't give a shit about a few extra megabytes, let alone a few extra kilobytes.
>>alpha channel supported for both lossy and lossless images
not many people care, and those people are already using png
>>animated images supported
you say that like its a good thing
>>based on VP8 (used for WebMs)
who gives a shit what its based on?

also remember that xkcd "there's fourteen competing standards" cartoon? Webp is trying to introduce a new standard when everyone already has a standard for their use case.

>>55509767
>not by enough to make people bother.
The filesize can be less than half in a lot of cases
>and those people are already using png
But what if they want to use a lossy format but also use transparency?
>you say that like its a good thing
So you'd rather use GIFs?

>>55507513
But anon BPG is better

>>55509846
>The filesize can be less than half in a lot of cases
again I repeat: "yeah, so?" If you're really sensitive to filesize you can boost the jpeg compression level anyway. Few images need to be lossless.
>But what if they want to use a lossy format but also use transparency?
Few images need transparency, also, so you're only solving a problem for the intersection of two small subsets of people.
>So you'd rather use GIFs?
no, I'd rather there not be animated images around. I wish that shit would have died along with the HTML <blink> tag back in 1997.

>>55509948
>If you're really sensitive to filesize you can boost the jpeg compression level anyway.
But that would make the image look worse. I think everyone would agree that it would be good to have smaller files.
>I'd rather there not be animated images around.
But they are. I hate them too but using WebP would make me hate them much less since WebP is not nearly as bad as GIFs.

>>55510030
>But that would make the image look worse.
Not much worse. Also remember that 99% of normies don't give a shit about even very crunchy-looking jpegs. Most of them don't notice or care when video has aspect-ratio problems.
>I think everyone would agree that it would be good to have smaller files.
It'd be good, but it's not so good that it's worth having another file format for. Same thing about how Plan 9 users lament that their OS is an improvement on *nix, but not enough of one for anyone to bother using it.
>But they are. I hate them too but using WebP would make me hate them much less since WebP is not nearly as bad as GIFs.
They're annoying because they're animated, not because they have a limited color palette or large filesize. Any animated-image format is a bad thing to have around, regardless of how good its compression is.

>>55507513
Don't bother if it isn't supported by iOS. I also don't want to serve multiple image formats

>>55510112
>They're annoying because they're animated, not because they have a limited color palette or large filesize.
I know, that's not the point I was trying to make. It would be better to have an alternative to GIF anyway since it's so bad.

I kinda agree with the rest though. But I still think WebP support would be a good thing.

AV1 will have a Still Image format spec just like HEVC has Still Image spec

It will be widely adopted since Mozilla is part of the Alliance, WebP is dead in the water period, only morons still try to force a dead format when even Google will push for AV1 adoption

is BPG (HEVC-encoded jpeg) still a thing?

>>55510248
No one is gonna adopt BPG when there's expensive royalties from the 2 HEVC patent pools