• Thorry84@feddit.nl
    172·
    7 days ago

    I recently put in a lot of hours for a software system to be able to handle webp just as well as every other image format it already accepted. I put in a lot of work as well. Hadn’t heard about it for a while, but saw the feature release statement for the new version I knew my changes were in. It wasn’t on there. So I reached out to my contact and asked if there was an issue or did it get bumped to a later version or what? So she told me the marketing team that do the release statements decided not to include it. They stated for one, people already expect common formats to be handled. Saying you now handle a format looks bad, since people know you didn’t handle it before and were behind the curve. The second (probably more important) reason was nobody knew what webp even was and it’s only something technical people care about (they probably said nerds, but my contact translated). So no regular customer would be interested and it could only lead to confusion and questions.

    I hope somebody is happy with the work I put in tho. Somebody is going to drag a webp into the system and have it be accepted. Someday… I hope…

    • finitebanjo@lemmy.world
      1·
      6 days ago

      That marketing team is a bunch of absolute morons. Handling Webp would have made the comapny trendsetters.

    • _stranger_@lemmy.world
      1134·
      7 days ago
      1. Fuck those people for telling you this after you did the work
      2. Those reasons are hard-stop stupid. If they REALLY cared about the marketing they’d release it silently or add a “improvements to image format handling” line and leave it at that.
      • Thorry84@feddit.nl
        61·
        5 days ago

        Maybe I worded it incorrectly. The feature was released in that version. They just didn’t mention it in the release statement they put out to their customers. I’m sure there’s some changelog somewhere people can dig into where it says something like what you mentioned. Or it can just be under “Various small improvements” which they always add as a catch-all.

        So I’m happy, I did the job and got paid. Everyone I worked with was happy. And the feature got released. It’s was just a let down it didn’t get mentioned at all, even though I put quite a lot of work into it.

      • jj4211@lemmy.world
        10·
        6 days ago

        I will second the suggestion at something like “expanded support for more image formats”. One of my responsibilities is rolling the development log into customer release notes and I agree with the “changes that highlight a previous shortcoming can look bad”, and make accommodations for that all the time. I also try to make sure every developer that contributed can recognize their work in the release notes.

        “Expanded image format support” seems like something that if a customer hasn’t noticed, they would assume “oh they must have some customer with a weird proprietary format that they added but have to be vague about”. If it were related to customer requests, I would email the specific customers highlighting their need for webp is addressed after pushing the release notes

    • Lemminary@lemmy.world
      23·
      7 days ago

      I hope somebody is happy with the work I put in tho. Somebody is going to drag a webp into the system and have it be accepted.

      And that was me! I mean, not with your software but with someone else’s years ago. Still, in a weird anachronistic karma sort of way, thank you for caring.

    • lostbit@feddit.nlEnglish
      2·
      6 days ago

      a bit related.

      Was working for a comparison engine. Back in the day things where slow. But i made it lightning fast. Pretty proud.

      Untill a few weeks later the manager comes up, and tells me to make it SLOWER!

      apparently users thought it was suss that it was so fast and the results therefore where fake…

  • Fiona@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    412·
    6 days ago

    webp is absofuckinglutely inferior to JPEG-XL and that one is where you actually have that problem. I’m literally providing an avif-fallback on my website, because otherwise pretty much no browser would support anything.

    (Speaking of it, avif is also superior to webp.)

  • StarMerchant938@lemmy.world
    60·
    7 days ago

    As someone who sometimes needs a quick and dirty stock image for my work, webp is the bane of my existence. The work computers won’t let me visit sites or install programs/extensions to convert the image, and my document processing programs have no fucking clue what to do with the format. There is an option in Microsoft edge to edit image, and it will dump the result as a .png which is the only workaround I’ve found.

    • zqps@sh.itjust.works
      18·
      7 days ago

      I run Firefox portable with the extension “Save webp as PNG or JPEG”. It has a button to copy directly to clipboard in the format of your choice.

      • Decq@lemmy.world
        2·
        6 days ago

        So much this. I’ve completely forgotten about this issue since I’ve installed that extension.

      • skisnow@lemmy.caEnglish
        2·
        7 days ago

        I usually screenshot it in place with alt-print screen, paste it into paint, crop it to size, and save

    • edgemaster72@lemmy.worldEnglish
      4·
      7 days ago

      When I save as an image and it comes up as webp I just change the extension dropdown to all files and change the extension to .png in the filename box, hasn’t failed for me yet

      • Hoimo@ani.social
        1·
        6 days ago

        Does that actually change the file, or will it still break when your software can’t handle webp? Because I did that to a webp, but Firefox still shows it’s a webp (in the tab name), probably based on magic byte. I don’t have any viewers that can’t display webp though, and I think they’re all smart enough to go by magic byte.

        • edgemaster72@lemmy.worldEnglish
          1·
          6 days ago

          To be honest I don’t know enough about the file types to answer that, but I can confirm at least that a .png I saved from a .webp also says webp image when hovering over the tab if I open it in Firefox.

  • TriflingToad@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
    24·
    6 days ago

    for my use cases of memes or a PowerPoint type thing once in a while for school. Literally any image format works for me. I don’t care about quality (as long as it’s not REALLY bad) and just want to get the image from Google to the PowerPoint, and somehow GOOGLES own image format fails to work for GOOGLES PowerPoint product.
    I don’t understand how you can not support your own format 10 years after it came out.

    pro tip by the way, you can open it in Microsoft paint then “save as -> .PNG” to get Google slides/whatever to accept it.

    (before someone recommends alternatives, im talking about use on a locked down school computer. I can’t use alternative software that’s better because they block images in WIKIPEDIA, no shot for using an actual foss software lmao)

    • dual_sport_dork 🐧🗡️@lemmy.worldEnglish
      111·
      6 days ago

      use on a locked down school computer.

      Shift + Win + S

      I’ll bet they didn’t disable that in Group Policy. Lasso that sumbitch right off your screen and then just paste it into whatever.

      • Liz@midwest.socialEnglish
        6·
        6 days ago

        Paint trick would leave the option for higher quality, a screen grab leaves you at screen grab resolution.

        • dual_sport_dork 🐧🗡️@lemmy.worldEnglish
          3·
          6 days ago

          True, but I’ll wager most of the things people are filching for these purposes get displayed on the screen at 100% scale anyway. Unless you’re sniping a picture for large format print, in which case I figure you’d probably be under less restrictive conditions… Hopefully.

    • Tigeroovy@lemmy.ca
      2·
      6 days ago

      You don’t even have to open it in Microsoft paint, you can just save it as a new format from the standard image viewer software.

    • finitebanjo@lemmy.world
      1·
      6 days ago

      Plus, it makes a bunch of users resort to adding extensions to their browser such as

      “Save webP as PNG or JPEG 1.5.4”

      which is fine but absolutely not as secure as without extensions.

  • Noxy@pawb.socialEnglish
    16·
    6 days ago

    fucking Telegram automatically converts any webp sent in a message to a fucking sticker

    I didn’t want that. I want the ability to view the image, including zooming in and panning, and telegram forcing it into a sticker kills that completely

  • phantomwise@lemmy.mlEnglish
    229·
    6 days ago

    Wait am I the only one who actually likes WEBP and is cheering for JPEG to finally die ? 😭

    • Overshoot2648@lemm.ee
      21·
      6 days ago

      Webp can die. JpegXL is better in every metric and can losslessly compress existing jpeg images. The chromium team has been notably trying to kill JXL because they spent so much time on AVIF and Webp despite neither offer anything close to JXL.

    • JigglySackles@lemmy.world
      1512·
      6 days ago

      If webp didn’t come from google I might cheer it. I refuse to adopt any standard made by google if I can help it. If google made it, they made it with some reason or ability to alter it that’s nefarious and anti consumer. They wouldn’t make an improved open standard that wasn’t going to allow them to do shady shit.

      • valtia@lemmy.world
        161·
        6 days ago

        They made it because better image compression means less storage is required for images. Even if it’s a small upgrade, over trillions of images or exabytes of data saved translates into millions of dollars saved. This is the same thing for the delta format as another example

        By making .webp an open standard, more people will use it, thus more space savings will be had by default

          • valtia@lemmy.world
            11·
            6 days ago

            I’m sure Google literally doesn’t care, as long as a more effective compression algorithm is used. That’s why they made it an open standard, use whatever you want but don’t demonize .webp unnecessarily

            • tempest@lemmy.ca
              2·
              5 days ago

              Use whatever you want, but remember Google gets to decide what Chrome supports and if Chrome doesn’t support it…

            • Raltoid@lemmy.worldEnglish
              22·
              5 days ago

              I’m sure google doesn’t …

              Said everyone who’s never experienced google doing google things.

  • gleb@lemmy.world
    141·
    6 days ago

    in my honest opinion, it’s a real shame that webp isn’t widely supported. it’s actually really great: it has awesome lossless compression, it’s so much smaller than a png while not losing any quality, it supports animation and loops, etc. it’s like jpg, png, and gif rolled into one format.

  • skisnow@lemmy.caEnglish
    12·
    6 days ago

    The giant jpeg square artefact on the side of Homer’s head in the first frame undermines the message somewhat.

    • Scrollone@feddit.it
      9·
      6 days ago

      I’m not sure that’s a JPEG artifact. It looks more like a video compression artifact (since the image is probably taken from a video).

        • Scrollone@feddit.it
          5·
          6 days ago

          lol there’s a specific AVI format based on JPEG, but other file formats use different algorithms

          • Aux@feddit.ukBannedEnglish
            31·
            6 days ago

            Pretty much all compression algorithms work similar to JPEG. The newer formats only add even more crazy maths to the mix, but the base is pretty much the same.