☰
×
Login Register an account
Top Submissions Explore Upgoat Search Random Subverse Random Post Colorize! Site Rules
37

Webp is for niggers

submitted by I_am_baal to funny 1.8 yearsAug 3, 2022 17:29:29 ago (+37/-0)     (files.catbox.moe)

https://files.catbox.moe/5sa904.png



15 comments block

sort by: hot new top old low

[ - ] mikenigger 0 points 1.8 yearsAug 10, 2022 15:57:02 ago (+0/-0)

webp master race

[ - ] lastlist 6 points 1.8 yearsAug 3, 2022 19:31:51 ago (+6/-0)

Jewgle owned iirc.

[ - ] Wahaha 4 points 1.8 yearsAug 3, 2022 17:58:08 ago (+4/-0)

The worst part about webp is that you cannot scale it up without tremendous loss of quality. You can blow up a JPG to like 300% its original size and it will remain decent. But not a webp.

[ - ] TheYiddler 0 points 1.8 yearsAug 3, 2022 23:48:01 ago (+0/-0)

That makes no sense. Everything is a bmp in editing software.

[ - ] Temp20210918c 1 point 1.8 yearsAug 4, 2022 01:38:19 ago (+1/-0)

Some compression algos are 'lossy'. For images this means you'll get slightly different pixels after running a compression + decompression compared to what was in the original image.

In order for the image software of your choice to open a webp file, it has to first decompress it. Therefore, the bitmap representation of the image in RAM will have the subtly wrong pixels, as received, baked in. It could well be that the pixels you get from jpeg are less wrong than those from webp. It seems like that would be a useful trade-off to have as an option: if you don't expect a need to zoom in 300%, you can save on storage/transfer costs.

[ - ] Wahaha 0 points 1.8 yearsAug 4, 2022 03:59:48 ago (+0/-0)

You can get the same effect with JPG. Just save them smaller than you need them and tell your site to scale it up. You also can get JPGs that are smaller than webp at the same resolution and the naked eye won't be able to tell the difference in quality.

[ - ] TheYiddler 0 points 1.8 yearsAug 6, 2022 01:03:47 ago (+0/-0)

Then the problem is compression. If webp is worse then say it's inferior to jpeg. This applies to all zoom levels.

[ - ] mikenigger 0 points 1.8 yearsAug 10, 2022 15:56:21 ago (+0/-0)

nigger what

[ - ] UncleDoug 3 points 1.8 yearsAug 3, 2022 23:16:36 ago (+3/-0)

Anything .webp should receive an instant downvote.

[ - ] Redhairin 2 points 1.8 yearsAug 4, 2022 03:15:37 ago (+2/-0)

I collect photos on flashdrives, but never webp crap...I always convert that stuff to jpg:
https://ezgif.com/webp-to-jpg
This is one of many online convertors (I think the easiest to use), and of course there is software to do that.

[ - ] Wahaha 1 point 1.8 yearsAug 4, 2022 04:01:31 ago (+1/-0)

I'm using ffmpeg, which works well enough.

[ - ] Redhairin 0 points 1.8 yearsAug 7, 2022 02:30:32 ago (+0/-0)

Outside my skill level...I'm just now starting to deal with attachments in email (well most of the time). Whatever works.

[ - ] Wahaha 0 points 1.8 yearsAug 7, 2022 03:59:10 ago (+0/-0)

Yeah, whatever works.

I've integrated shortcuts to call ffmpeg commands inside my file browser, so I just have to press a button to convert webp to jpg and I also only have to press a shortcut to convert 500 webps inside a folder to jpgs.

The command for a single conversion looks like this:

$ ffmpeg -i input.webp -qscale 0 output.jpg

[ - ] ruck_feddit 2 points 1.8 yearsAug 4, 2022 00:34:40 ago (+2/-0)

You should have posted this in webp.

[ - ] asdf23 0 points 1.8 yearsAug 4, 2022 13:18:59 ago (+0/-0)

This is really easily avoided. I'm using Firefox I don't ever get this. I forget, but something like open the image in a new window and then file save as..