WebP!!

>>55720763

>lossy files are smaller than lossless files

This is the part when we stop the presses right?

>>55720851
Apparently it's better than other lossy file types as well, but I've never tried using them

File: test2.png (1MB, 1336x961px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1336x961px

>>55720851
>PNG is lossless.
Fuck, I did not know.
N/m I'll try using JPEG as well.

>>55721058
Btw
Left: PNG @ 774 KB
Right: WebP @ 164 KB

Not that it matters, as its not a valid comparison.

How to convert to webp?

File: Screenshot_2016-07-23-15-09-28.png (721KB, 1080x1920px) Image search: [Google]

721KB, 1080x1920px

>>55721107
The official site:

https://developers.google.com/speed/webp/docs/precompiled

You can use the command-line tools to make simple conversions. I compiled the DLL and implemented it with the binaries on my web app.

>>55720763
Yeah, webp is great. There is no need for a lossless format in this scenario, especially since the difference is not visible and the pros largely outweight the cons. There is just one problem which led Facebook to stop using webp for content images: If a user saves an image on his device and wants to send it to his friends, e.g. WhatsApp won't take the file. Not that it matters, since his friend wouldn't be able to view it anyway since it's an unkown filetype. There is very little support for webp outside of browsers and people want to save and share files through standard channels. Windows labels is as a "file" with no thumbnail preview or metadata info by default.

>>55721460
Addition:
You might want to switch no .jpg (optimized with mozjpeg) if you don't have any transparency in the images or .png (optimized with zopfliPNG or PNGout) if you do, for compatibility.

Should I also use mp3 over FLAC because the files are way smaller and the quality is nearly the same?

>>55721803
Hell no. Use AAC (or OPUS if your device supports it).

>>55721803
No, you should use AAC, unless bitrates under 100kbps or so then use Opus.

Does anybody have a ready to deploy solution to serve WebP when viewing on iOS? There's no reason to adopt shit when it isn't even compatible with the way normies browse.

>>55721907
Nah, I'm just here for the memes and shitposting

File: test3_jpg_vs_webp.png (18KB, 430x387px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 430x387px

Alright so i tried to compare webp vs jpeg. They’re about the same as far as size. However, the webp files have a lot less noticeable artifacts, IMO

>>55722001
Then you are doing it wrong. Open the .png's in Photoshop and save them as .jpg with quality 12. You'll see that they look alike.

>>55720851
>webp can't be lossless

>>55722168
You remember what board you're on, right?

File: 1037485927349.png (2MB, 1011x3032px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1011x3032px

Posting a test someone did a while back. JPG is a fucking joke.

>>55722183
not even fappable material. shits gross

>>55722168
If you don't like how JPG performs, take the PNG's and run them through PNGout (choose the right color mode, RGB or grayscale) or zopfliPNG (remove alpha channel first).

>>55722394
lossless RGBA 24-bit Webp would still beat PNG lmao.

>>55722418
Buddy, obviously webp is better. That's not the point. It's about compatibility. See >>55721460

>>55722437
A.) fuckload of Android photo viewers support viewing Webp images right off the bat.
B.) apps like kik NEED to integrate Webp support as it would reduce photo sizes and not fuck their shit up like they do right now. Millions of users would flock to kik as they see their images sent stay relatively high quality.
C.) You can already download a Webp codec things for Winblows which takes like 2 seconds and will then instantly have the ability to decode Webp images

Anyway it's time to leave the rotting corpse known as JPG behind, we gotta move on. If not Webp then BPG but JPG has to go. It's clearly massively deprecated. see >>55722218

>>55722543
>zip is still a thing because Windows supports it out of the box

File: mods_are_lesbians.png (344KB, 465x747px) Image search: [Google]

344KB, 465x747px

>>55722168
>deleted
Maybe this is more to your liking?

File: sagehide.gif (3MB, 700x517px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 700x517px

>muh png overloads my data caps
sure is murrifat around here

>>55723006
I don't think you understand the huge impact Webp would have on the web. It's not about shaving a few KB off of your 400x400 res smug anime loli reaction pic. It's about shaving MB from images to reduce server bandwidth strain and allow for faster downloads across all user bandwidths. Remember that while you may have a 1Gbps internet connection, it doesn't mean 4chan can serve you shit at 1Gbps.

Ex:

4K res image = 40MB JPG or 20MB Webp at the same visual quality.

These bandwidth saving technologies aren't about (You) they're about making hosting images cheaper and less stressful for servers.

>>55723114
I don't think you understand how much of a cuck you look like shilling for Jewggle in here.
Get fucked, Pajeet.

>>55722218
I can already see the difference starting at the 48.4kb WebP just casually looking at them.

>>55723195
Webp is open source and free you dumbass.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/WebP

>>55723226
So is my shit, want me to mail it to you if you pay the postage?

>>55723195
>>55723226
Tyrannosaurus RECKD!

>>55723260
How is he shilling for jewgle though? They get jack shit is you use Webp commercially or privately. Chrome isn't the only browser to decode Webp images either.


What would you rather people use BPG and have the HEVC cocksuckers collect billions from royalty fees?

>>55723298
>I don't know what Chromium is or all it's derivative browsers like Chrome, Opera, Vivaldi, etc.
Come on faggot, you are on /g/, you are supposed to at least know this shit before participating in the thread.

>>55721460
>sharing pictures
>a porn site

Lol webp is perfect in this scenario

>>55721832
>>55721835
WTF, you were supposed to get mad and call me a faggot for using mp3, not give an answer.

Post some then, I'll wait.

File: reeeeeeeeeeeeeeee.png (152KB, 600x507px) Image search: [Google]

152KB, 600x507px

>>55720763
>not much difference in quality
>DIFFERENCE IN QUALITY

>>55723226

>free

No it's not free, it's a BSD license. Stop comparing the true capitalist license to your extremist Lincucks socialist free thing; it's not free.

>>55724507
Maybe he means as in free beer.

>>55724507
>free
>extremist socialist thing

gee, it sure is /pol/ in here.

>>55724549

>write a recipe for how to connect to the WiFi in a Mcdonalds without running its nonfree Javascript code. The recipe could include a free Javascript program I could run, or it could consist of instructions for what I would type into IceCat (our variant of Firefox). It doesn't have't be super convenient, it just has to work.

>Amazon distributes ebooks in a way that strips users of many freedoms (PDF or html).

>Amazon's shipping in the US is done in a sweatshop with paramedics standing by for workers who pass out from the heat.

>I can't sympathize much with those app developers, since they are making proprietary software. They all deserve to fail.

>Anyone who intentionally develops proprietary software (i.e., does not respect users' freedom) deserves no sympathy, but that doesn't excuse Apple for luring people into it. Some of them would not have tried to develop proprietary software if not for Apple.

>E-books with digital handcuffs are products designed to attack your freedom, much like the iThing itself.

>Lots of iThing users complained that they did not want the U2 album "gift" that Apple stuck them with — and that it was hard to delete. These complaints focus on a superficial problem, reflecting the shallow thinking that Apple instills in its users. Ironically, though, this superficial problem reflects a much deeper problem that the complainers have failed to notice: the unjust power that Apple has imposed on whoever uses an iThing or iTunes.

>t. Richard Stallman

Read these and tell me that free software ideology isn't extremist and commie propaganda. The true attack on our freedom is the cancer known as free software, even Linus doesn't want to be associated with them and he's two thirds a cuck. How cucked are you to not realize this?

>>55724661
>>Lots of iThing users complained that they did not want the U2 album "gift" that Apple stuck them with
And if Apple handed out gold bars you'd complain how heavy they were.
You just love to complain. You are a self-fulfilling victim.

>>55721803
Use Opus @ 160kbps VBR.

>>55720851
WebP can be lossless (though OP used lossy WebP)
I think that it's a bit too late to start using WebP, when AV1 will probably get an image format too (after it gets released officially in Q4 2016/Q1 2017) as a competitor to BPG.

>>55726734
Ass
Ass
Ass

>>55723114
WebP takes many more processing to display. Just think how many processings are wasted displaying many WebP over PNG. So many more waste heat and electricity.

>>55727110
this is an english board

>>55727129
I am english poster on english board. What is problem?

every time a picture is uploaded or downloaded the quality degrades a little anyways so why bother worrying so much about file types

>>55727334

You're a retard. Neck yourself.

>>55727349
found the autist

>>55726640
>Opus
>anything above 128kbps
I can't hear the difference after 64kbps, and I could spot a 320kbps mp3 from FLAC

>>55720763
Shit format.

Who /bpg/ here?

File: 0541c04c8c3e5a6651442e9297230bc761ad3baf_hq.gif (204KB, 500x392px) Image search: [Google]

204KB, 500x392px

>>55727592
BPG is literally a cuck format, it has the same HEVC licensing royalty fee BS as HEVC video codec itself. Eat shit and die in a fire.

>>55727619
Stop living in a country with shit laws.

>>55727577
If you're not lying, I don't know what the fuck you're doing.

People that know this shit. Is it really hard to make new formats compatible with software? For instance, why is it that Chrome/Firefox can't be compatible with new formats instantly? (obviously outside of the ones that would cost money to deploy.)

Especially when there is a format like Opus that seems like it's beneficial to literally everybody with absolutely no downsides. Doesn't make sense why developers hold out unless it's really really difficult to make your software compatible.

>>55727592
BPG smooths images too much. Its like smearing vaseline all over them.

>>55727919
Better than jpg blocking.

File: 1432485218493.png (26KB, 771x686px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 771x686px

>>55727181
You're not fooling anyone Pahjeet. Don't you have some fake accounts to make?

>>55722001
webp has a lossless mode too btw

>tfw no android WEBP viewer as good as quickpic for porn

>>55721907
there are javascript webp decoders. no idea if they work on ios.

webp is google botnet
it is against internet freedom

>>55730250
It's free and open source though...

>>55721907
>iOS
>>>/fa/
>>>/lgbt/

>>55721058
If you set WebP to 100% quality it's lossless. Still half the size of PNG in many situations

>local intranet web app that serves hentai manga

>>55722562
I don't know a single person who uses zip for compression, only to bundle things. Normalfag or not

>>55731577
>If you set WebP to 100% quality it's lossless.
This is false, it's still lossy but the detail loss is extremely minimal. Webp does have lossless RGBA encoding but must be enabled through the

-lossless

flag through the encoder. It's still smaller than a typical non-lossy PNG by 25-50% though.

>>55731614
>bundle things
That's what tar is for.