When 99.9 percent of users don't know the purpose of webp, don't notice any benefit, and only know of its existence because they struggle to open the damn thing, there's no wonder people hate it.
People reap the benefits even when they don't realize they are. If you're loading a grid of images in search results (say on Google, Amazon, whatever), using WebP instead of JPEG really could be the difference between whether the page loads in 2 seconds or in 4.
I specifically hate it because Google used it as a justification for not supporting the MUCH better JPEG-XL format that everyone besides Google wanted to be the next big image format. Backward compatible with JPEG, better compression, variable quality where it loads a lower quality first while in the background loading a higher quality and then displaying that once downloaded, etc.
That was about Google dropping the JPEG-XL support they had already added in Chrome in favour of AVIF (another video codec-based image format similar to WebP and HEIC). WebP support goes further back and didn't have anything to do with the AVIF vs. JXL dispute. It just got dragged into the general outcry against Google after they dropped JXL suport.
Trying to decode JPEG XL has been the worst thing ever since everything has been giving me artifacts. I ended up using the official tool to convert to Tiff just so I had something usable that wouldn't artifact like crazy.
The format can exist but my issue is when you request a .jpg, websites ignoring that request & giving you a .webp since they think they know what is best. Sometimes I want it, sometimes I very much do not… such as when downloading a file.
What? Websites store it as webp, they would need to write something to handle your request for jpeg and convert it on the fly, or store a jpeg version which then defeats the whole purpose of having webp
@@Gastell0 No, man. When you manually replace the ".wep" extension from the link in the browser with ".jpg" (the image format that was INITIALLY uploaded to the website), it doesn't want to give you the original JPG file, it just spits out the WEBP. That is 100% the website's fault. 😠 Often you don't want a compressed file FROM a compressed file (double compression), you want the initially compressed file. The one with the better quality.
What you don't understand is that bandwidth will be save in the long run. Imagine saving about 1Mb every time an image is loaded. They would add up and reduce outbound data cost.@@zdspider6778
@@zdspider6778if you're looking for a lossless file from a website it should be uploaded to a site that has lossless support. You don't walk into a toy store buy a toy car and get upset they had no real cars. It sounds like you're on the wrong website. Your average social media platform or image host isn't in the business of storing the original photo or lossless formats.
I do model building and the best source of new photos is eBay. I want to see what something looks like in a specific area etc. or what a vehicle looked like etc. but webp felt like an anit download format to make eBay more money.
@@SamuelSarette They meant taking pics from Google image search or websites for free instead of paying for stock photos like for making a Powerpoint or adding pics in a video.
That's EXACTLY what it is! Because there seems to be absolutely NO SIMPLE WAY in existence to download these from the internet. I have tried all the described ways I could find on Google and literally NOTHING fking works!
I don't think Photoshop supports it either But they work in premiere for some reason Also discord oddly will often save emotes as webp but not recognize that same file if you try to upload it back
And for a good reason. It's 1/10 of the size of a lossy JPEG and 1/5 the size of a lossless PNG... Saving 90% of your bandwidth means you walk away with 90% smaller bills.
@@shapelessed Yeah, I’ve personally used it for a website I developed, though back then, Webkit didn’t support it, yet, so creating png versions of all images just for Safari was kind of a pain. It finally got support in (I believe) 2020-ish, just shortly after I bought my first MacBook, lol.
It's a fine format, but Google chose to completely halt the adoption of the excellent jpegxl format in favor of webp, so I hold a bit of a grudge. Both could have co-existed, but they want to control how the internet works such as which formats can be used. Crazy a single company can hold so much power
Image format support in web browsers is such a mess, honestly. No wonder so many people still think that png and jpg are the only formats that exist. :/
I guess it has basically become the MP3 or H.264 of image file formats: "Good enough and widely supported so we won't switch to anything better unless forced to".
Back in 90s there was Amiga computer with its own AmigaOS and in v3 they introduced datatypes library. This was a kind of "plugin" system on the OS level that allowed for encoding and decoding image, audio and video files (and some more, like text/hypertext). All the app needed to do was use the datatypes library from the OS and then it was automatically compatible with all the formats for which you had the plugins. For example, when PNG format was introduced, the author (Cloanto company) released a datatype plugin for AmigaOS and suddenly all already existing apps suddenly became compatible with the new format. Magic! It still baffles me how we are 30 years later, Amiga is dead, but neither Windows nor macOS implemented such a briliant plugin system for multimedia formats.
Something's messed up with your PC if that's the case. If your PC opens a WEBP image in the browser, it means you set your browser to do that by default, probably due to lack of other programs that can open it.
@sujimayne these cobfig changes are probably not consented to by the user (e.g. edge on macos automatically opens web and webm files in the browser instead of preview or QuickTime player)
The thing really got me was that on some websites there would be a picture with a known extension: .jpg, .png, .gif... When I downloaded that picture it ended up as a .webp. I cannot seem to reproduce that behavior now though.
The website owners probably converted the .png/.gif/.jpg files to webp without changing the name. Browsers only care about the mime type *(image/webp).* Most browsers can detect when the extension is wrong and will automatically fix it based on the mime type.
The URL is not like a file path on your local system. Just because a URL ends on .jpg does not mean that the response that the server will send to your request is also of that filetype. In praxis, it often works like this: 1. If a user uploads an image, the server stores the image as it was sent and generates a URL that often still contains the original file name, for example .jpg. 2. The server then generates compressed versions, for example in .webp. If another user calls the URL to the image with its original .jpg ending, the server will give them the .webp file because it reduces traffic. 3. The .jpg file may still be accessible in some way, for example if the website has an account that lets the uploader view and edit their own uploads. Then the user would get the original file to perform edits on (since that's the highest quality version available), and new .webp versions would be created afterwards.
@@T33K3SS3LCH3N Thanks for the info. I had no idea things were that flexible/complicated. I don't like it, but it wasn't designed for me. I'm sure the web runs a lot faster because of it.
I have experience this extension format switch, too. It just occurred to me that when I use Chrome and want to save a jpg or png image Chrome saves it as a webp. I’ll put money on the table that Chrome is converting the original image to webp.
What's also mad is how some apps or devices support AV1 video (that royalty-free format lots of big-companies partnered to make), but not AVIF, which is the still-image format that comes from AV1. AVIF is basically the same as one frame of an AV1 video -- like if you were to pause. So how can AVIF images not be supported where AV1 video is, they're like the same-thing! 🤷🏻♂️
Video codecs have always been a mess. You can implement PNG or JPG decoders from scratch in a day, those are well documented and easy to understand. Linking to a multi-megabyte black-box codec library just to load an image file isn't feasible, except for a program that works with videos anyway.
Good point. GIF really should have been split into two formats. Then again, from what little I remember about its file structure, animation might have been a bolted-on hack, as I know most software that can read GIFs but doesn't support animation will decode the first frame just fine, then ignore the rest of the file. Pretty sure APNG/MNG are basically PNG images with some extra chunks for animation control and multiple sets of image data, much like animated GIFs. Again, it's been a long time since I last read anything about the file formats.
@@negirno Not a problem for software to just check for the file signatures of supported formats (and a lot will check for other supported formats if the expected one for the file extension can't be found), but the extensions are very much needed for humans. If you've got a list of file names, you need some way to tell what's what, and extensions get the job done. Could it be done some other way? Possibly, but extensions are the only one I know of that can be done with just the text of the filename alone.
I love the fact that Thio actually makes the captions and time markers, even fot the ad. I take that as a sing of respect to the viewer and their convenience. Thank you ❤❤
I think the only problem with WebP is incompatibility, like image preview and ability to view in programs. The file size is superior to PNG and allows full color animated gif style images. However, incompatibility is a major problem, because if you can't see or edit the image, then it's annoying to convert it so you can.
There is a way to get Windows to show webp in previews but I can't remember how. I think it's a Microsoft plugin download. I am much happier now that I can get previews of webp, avif and svg files and view them all with a simple double click.
Right. If it doesn't work in even one of the apps you normally rely on, then the bytes saved don't help you at all. Local storage is never an issue with images downloaded from websites.
Easiest way I found - download and install free irfanview and associate webp images with it (installs that way out of the box if memory serves me well - then do a "save as" with your favourite format - jpeg, png, even bmp I guess if you like it that much ...
@@gerdd6692 Yes I have that and other apps, but the problem is app things that work with jpg and png, do not all support webp, because it is a newer format. That's all I meant.
I believe that it's not the format that should be hated, but the software developers who have been unable or unwilling to add a fully open source format to their product for 13 years.
My editors still do not support webp so usually I have to find some workaround to get a png, but it's not just that. it's the fact so many websites insist on giving you webp _instead_ of the format you ask for. Even if you go to a url ending in .jpg or .png it will download as a webp. Search results. I click on a result for a png, after searching for a png, and the website redirects to a webp. Screw that format and screw the web admins that use it. Give me what I want, not what you think I want.
WordPress shows the file's original format, but converts images to webp to serve webp images when the browser supports it, which is why this problem happens. Can't WordPress just use srcSet!
You may be changing the URL to be .PNG or .JPEG but they likely do not have a PNG or JPEG version for you to use. WebP is considered web safe(the vast majority of users will not have any issues with webp). So many websites may not have PNG or JPEG at all anymore. It's not serving what they think you want, they're serving what they have. Is it really the websites job to serve files in the format you want? It's okay for a website to no longer store old formats that are no longer needed anymore. I have a couple of small scale image hosting websites. I used to keep a few versions of images on hand and display the one the requester wanted. When I re-wrote the backend I checked my analytics and found only a handful requests were for formats other than webp... For the entire website for the month. In the end I removed all of it and only store and serve webp.
@@user-sf8du No the url I'm going to already has the png/jpg extension in many cases. For wikis I _do_ know they have it in that original format because they say so on the page that it was uploaded in that format. At least for fandom wikis and some others I can append ?original=1 or format=original to get it, but there are so many sites that just don't have any way to get around it.
I wish APNG caught on instead for lossless animated images. It has better compression and performance than Webp in most cases, and took basically no effort to support if you already had PNG support.
why would you want apng? Most animated images are just reaction image garbage and don't need archival quality. webp wins because it can use lossy compression without it looking like it's straight out of 1992.
One reason for hating webp today is because not everyone decided to update to the newer version of Adobe software (which require monthly subscription).
nowadays the biggest load on websites isn't the pictures anymore. It was in the 90s. Today it's several megabytes of javascript bloat and tracking sofware.
That could be a major use case for webp. The only other major options are PNG or GIF. PNG is decent for a lossless format, but file sizes can be prohibitively large. GIF is OK for small images but only supports 1-bit alpha. 😒 There are a few other lossy formats with alpha, but have practically no web support.
webm: one of the greatest video containers of all time second only to mkv, if only it had better support (tho Microsoft's mkv support also sucks) webp: I will rename you to png or jpeg and if it gets corrupted then it doesn't exist
@@MiBoxX11 Which means it's easier to have support. mkv is technically better, webm is more usably better. Unfortunately "easier to support" does not mean "supported." But most stuff now does it fine bar the Windows player having a stroke intermittently.
Microsoft's media player and their codec (Media Foundation) is mostly sucks lmao. I recommend to use K-Lite Codec Pack (much better codecs) or VLC (much better player) instead
Irfan Škiljan deserves respect for creating and updating Irfanview. I sent him a couple of Euros years ago. I probably should do it again in thanks for all of the use that I have continued to enjoy since then.
I use Irfanview often, in fact, yesterday and my experience has been it has never displayed a WebP downloaded image or an animated WebP. Is there a setting I'm missing as I'd love to be proven wrong on this.
The main reason I hate it is because Google decided to push it as a fake thing, even real PNG photos (that when opening the image URL directly and using control+s in the browser to save it, it saved as PNG properly) when right-clicking it and saving the image it saved as WEBP
Fun fact: Some programs like Krita and Affinity Photo can open .webp files and you can easily convert them into .png or .tiff files. But once they were compressed as those files, then they're compressed forever. However, there are high quality .webp files that can easily be converted into .png's or .tiff/.tif files and go from there.
On LInux, applications not supporting webp basically arent a thing any more since about 10 years. It really puzzled me when I found out that webp is so hated, for me, it was just a normal image format like jpg or png just with more features and maybe a few legacy apps not supporting it
@@aheendwhz1Various image viewers still don't, unfortunately, including the default one on Steam Deck's desktop mode. It's a pity because I like WebP too.
I'm pretty sure I remember there is/was a small plugin made by Google you had to install on Windows 7 that added support for photo-viewer and explorer-preview.
@@Mat2095 I'll have to check, maybe it also works on wiin10, none of my comps show webp as anything other than a random browser file with that browser icon in thumbnail view. Edit, had to find a forum post that linked directly to the setup exe as it wasn't listed on googl's webpage (only source code ye has to compile), thumbnails in file manager now work, gimp and irfanview still won't open them. oddly they open in media player labeled as "windows photo viewer", lol.
The instant premiere supported webp, my beef with it was over. Sorry "Save Image As PNG" Chrome extension, you were a real one... but it's time for me to move on o7
Developer/maintainer of node-webpmux here. Desktop/mobile Discord gets hate from me for STILL not supporting animated WebP images despite basically just being Chrome under the hood. Apparently their upstream resizer code doesn't support them still for some reason. Google gets points in my book for using RIFF as the container format. Makes parsing the metadata extremely simple. A note about the 'Multi-Threading'' checkbox on your cWebp GUI: there's almost zero reason to ever use it. According to the source code, the -mt flag is only applied to certain parts of the alpha layer compression.. the overall compression of the RGB etc layers are always single-threaded.
Desktop Discord is the worst. They haven't updated their Chrome version in years and break things that work in the browser. Why do they even recommend you using the Electron app? Even operating system integration is better when using the web version in a modern browser (at least on Linux).
@@billy65bob Oh, maybe they updated without me noticing? For literal years, they were stuck und Electron 13, then 17. Screen sharing didn't work, everything was sluggish and pixelated… Just started Discord for the first time in a while, and it looks better than it did back then. Maybe, I'll give it a shot again.
I'd say that "It supports both lossless and lossy file types" is a deal-breaker in and of itself. I don't want to have to use a special tool, just to check whether something is lossily compressed. It's bad enough that I have to write animation-stripping passes to force APNG files back to PNG spec-compliance if I want to support uploaded user content in my sites. (Yes, the reason the libpng reference implementation doesn't support APNG is because the PNG spec, having learned from GIF, explicitly says a PNG file header indicates that what follows contains one or more concrete representations (eg. full, thumbnail) of a single abstract image, so APNG files violate the PNG spec.)
It's funny how GIF, one of the worst formats, is loved and supported widely but WEBP, which is one of the most efficient ones, is hated and has minimal support even in Google products.
Seriously. Gif only gets a pass because everything can open it. It has terrible mandatory lossy compression, a capped frame rate of 50fps, and almost no api information available in the file itself so scrubbing through a gif animation is unreasonably difficult. I remember how gutted I felt when we had to drop support for animation scrubbing for all formats because it wasn't possible with gif without significant research and development dollars we didn't have.
@@lpnp9477 Yeah, it's awful. Some companies like twitter have been smart to just convert GIFs to mp4 and then just pretending that they are playing GIFs lmao
@@lpnp9477 actually, GIF is not lossy, it is pretty much lossless. But the downside is that it only supports 256 colors. So if you convert your normal 8-bit RGB, which is around 16.7 million colors to GIF, it just looks bad because it has to shift to the nearest color, and it starts to look weird. You can actually create the same image in theory though, IF you have unlimited resolution. You can just place colors side by side, so when you zoom out enough, it would blend and you'll see a near-correct color.
One more thing I hate about webp is that I do not see if the image I have is lossy or lossless. With png and jpg I immediately saw, oh it is a png file so it is a lossless image.
WebP wasn't a problem until the past few years for me when I started to see it used on some websites. Plus there was a vulnerability discovered in the format and/or libwebp late last year, so there may still be some undiscovered kinks. At least I have Gimp to convert it if I need to view it outside of my browser.
I always loved webp, avif and jxl formats. I'm appreciating people trying to improve older codecs developed 30+ years ago. As for support, it's hard to support everything in yout software. Sometimes companies purposely choose not to support some format to eliminate competition (Google Chrome with jxl right now). Webp is pretty established format supported on Android, Windows and most programs. Avif is supported by pretty much any modern browser and recent Android. On Linux you don't usually have to wait so long for the format to get support, right now webp, avif and jxl are supported in popular image viewers.
I would say WebP and AVIF are decent ideas in the surface, but using a video codec as an image codec is never going to be as good as making a specifically image focused codec (like JOEG XL). Video frames are designed to be shown for fractions of a second instead of looked at closely
It has some advantages, you can rely on video decoders to show the image without introducing additional codec to your software. Also in theory you could use the hardware acceleration designed for video decoding. However still video frames are not progressive nor responsive so you have to wait for entire image to decode (unlike jpeg and jxl which can load image partially).
The problem that JPEG successors always run into is that JPEG is actually really good. Not just "for something developed in 1992", it remains competitive today and it is hard to make enough improvement to be worth the hassle of changing. That is why you've never heard of JPEG2000.
@@CrushedAsian255 Only moreso. MP3's limitations are well-documented and other formats do offer significant advantages in both quality and compression rate, and the additional processing overhead they usually incur is trivial now that the 486 is in a museum. JPEG, though... the advantages are surprisingly small. It has jokingly been suggested to be alien technology from the future more than once because it is simply too good for the early nineties. Though JPEG2000 has seen adoption in the professional world in scenarios where any quality improvement is meaningful but storage limits preclude use of lossless formats. It is, ridiculously enough, the format that digital theater projectors use for the visual portion, instead of a "real" video format. (Full disclosure: I re-ripped all my CDs as FLAC years ago and have a preference for better formats on downloads, because I can hear the difference and it bugs me.)
As long as you have the "Webp Image Extensions" installed from the Microsoft Store, any app on Windows can then use that support in their own app. It's up to them if they do though
neat little useful app youve made, I've made a quick little PR to add a big QOL improvement: browse buttons (a long with a crash fix and a usability improvement relating to the selection of dwebp's file formats)
Literally hours ago I tried downloading an animated image, a gif, to put it inside OBS, to have a funny alien cat talking in a loop in the corner of the screen. And it was a webp, and it didn't support it so I had to manually convert it to gif using some site.
There's actually a good reason for that, because the GIF format is actually *terrible*. It's so bad that basically no one uses it for still images. People still use it for animations because for a while it was the only well-supported format that supported it, but now there's a culture of animated GIFs keeping it alive. There's a good chance an MP4 of an animation will be higher quality, higher frame rate, and *much* smaller file size than GIF. Like, an MP4 will be 200 KB and the equivalent GIF is like 10 MB and looks terrible.
@@stephencoakleyThe main reasons people kept using animated GIF were 1. It is a dead-simple format. 2. It lets you upload movies to sites that only support the display of static images. 1 is why hosts hate it. The simplicity means an animated GIF gets very large relative to proper video files. 2 is... frankly, animated GIF being the same file type as regular GIF was a bad choice to begin with for multiple reasons. I hate that everyone keeps trying to repeat the sins of their predecessors.
@@stephencoakley I actually sometimes still use GIF for small screen recordings because the program I use for this just insists on recording audio *which I don't want* and gif conveniently doesn't support audio. For me the main reason video formats aren't a good fit for "GIF like animations" is that they support audio
I am now liking this format, much compression and no real lost of quality! I write a script to convert my storage images to webp and I saved so much space! Thanks!
as a student, when making slideshows in canva and google slides webp isnt supported and it really frustrates me, especially because on chromebooks the only way to convert them is to use a tool like cloud convert and often the webp images are the best ones. If i have to go through such a big rigamarole to use a picture in a slide then usually I will just find a different image.
@@eadweard. "web" ties it to the INTERNET instead of for local use, that's the OP's point. People don't think of it as a format that you can use in general, they think of it as exclusively for webpages. It doesn't matter if that's accurate or not, psychology is powerful. 🤷
I've grown to love the webp file format. I've been modding the game where's my water, and that game stores most of it's images in lossless webp files (and that was back in 2011). Heck, the script they used to create the webp files was found, and it looks like they used the libwebp programs.
In Win 11 it doesn't work by default, unless you download an external lib to view it. But even with it, it is opened in a very over-saturated way, -> useless crap. So I convert it to .jpg format.
Yeah, but if it's a lossy webp... since it can be both lossy and lossless under the same extension (terrible design), you would be compressing an already compressed format. Which is terrible. You're basically making an MP3 from an AAC. Or an AVI from an MP4. 😐
I think we all agree that we should get rid of JPEG before all of our memes turn into abstract paintings. JXL sounded promising but Google waged war against it in favor of WEBP and now it's almost unheard of.
JXL or maybe AVIF should be the future. AVIF has the problem of having no progressive decoding and JXL has Google hating it so currently it makes sense WEBP is still the standard for smaller images
There is one downside to WebP that I still find a problem. Like WebM, it has forced chroma subsampling equivalent to JPEG's 4:2:0. At higher quality settings, this causes a noticeable quality drop, making images fuzzier than JPEG with full chroma (4:4:4). It's very noticeable. Depending on the image, a 95-98% JPEG image can be visually indistinguishible from the original, in my experience. Not so with WebP, even at 100% quality. That chromatic aberration is always there. It's especially annoying now that there are AI ways to remove JPEG artifacts that work quite well. I do use lossless WebP, as it does not change the color subsampling. But not lossy WebP.
Probably the biggest problem is manifest by the fact that your section titled “Google’s official WebP tools” is actually a rather significant chunk of the video. For people like you and I who understand, live, breathe, and speak technology, that’s great: 99 of people don’t want a tool to make it work, especially not command line tools. They want it to just work. Doesn’t matter how good the format is: google fumbled its release and rollout, and second chances don’t come cheap in IT.
I hate heic or whatever format apple has. It's not supported on my pc and when I try to get the format addon from ms store, it asks for money. I've googled and found that there are free means to get the addon, but I've tried those and it did not work for me for some reason.
Me the moment I saw those 4 letters together: OH GAWD NOT DIS ONE! I volunteer at a church where everyone seems to use Apple stuff (I was raised on Windows) and pretty much none of the editing software on their Mac seems to support the suckers so I end up waiting like two minutes just for IOS to convert it... Which leads to me having to wait even more time to upload them to the software. This sucks pretty badly when you have like 15 minutes to get everything ready. 😓 But seriously, this one is so annoying that even it's intended usage is annoying.
Jpeg XL is functionally and performance wise better than webp. I hate webp because Google is pushing for the use of webp and dumped out jpegxl despite it gaining legitimate traction in the industry.
I've been on the webp train for years, ever since i asked a friend for an image and they were able tl return it in higher quality and smaller size than I'd ever imagined. It worked on Discord and that was good enough for me.
I've been using webp as a replacement for animated GIFs for years now for anything i need to show an animated image. never really understood the hate. whenever a software doesnt support the format, i get mad at the software, not the format lol. i love webp. biggest problem with GIF for me is you can only have framerates at multiples of 10ms, so for example 60fps is impossible. if im trying to show a visual of something from a 60fps game, it will have to be sped up or slowed down. remember all those dumb articles that would have like 20 giant animated GIFs all playing on the same page and lag the hell out of the page, and they would all render at like 2FPS while they loaded? if the page had been using webp, there would be no issue.
You... don't want a 60 fps GIF. Trust me on that. Compression is *_terrible_* for anything longer than 2-3 seconds. You want an MP4 instead. Compressed with something like VP9, H.265 (HEVC), AV1. You get both better quality AND lower file size. 👍👍
@@zdspider6778 yup my use case is specifically for things under 5 seconds or so, typically very short clips indicating a sequence or input string (usually alongside text supplements)
WebP is a better alternative to nearly every other image format (jpg, png, gif, bmp, etc.), which supports lossless/lossy compression, transparency, and animation, all at a much smaller file size, and yet non-browser applications still refuse to support it properly. It's a shame, as a web developer I've been using webp for years and didn't realize the support wasn't there until recently for mainstream apps. I definitely hope it continues to replace the inferior formats for good.
Which is so funny to me because WebP sucks in efficiency and features compared to modern formats like JXL. The image format world is literally 30 years behind in technology, by the time WebP is well-supported I'm sure people will learn to hate the next generation of image formats because their crappy software has awful format support.
A PNG decoder can be implemented in less than 400 lines of C code. It's maintainable, debuggable, simple and fast. No need to include tons of black-box 3rd-party code for a VP8 video decoder just to load a damn WebP image file.
@@Tommy43040 Webp is nearly 15 years old and still isn't used by most websites, so it's literally the worst example of web devs hopping on a bandwagon. People need to stop crying over technological advancement. If an image format is over a decade old and sees more than 10% adoption, there is absolutely no excuse for an image viewer / editor to not support that format. If your reason to hate WebP is software not supporting it, maybe you should be using better software. Format nerds moved on from WebP to things like AVIF and JXL years ago, so I suppose those will be the next new hated formats once websites start using them
you can put the .bat file in the shell:sendto to make that you can right click and send to that .bat file and covert it, that's how i use it and it makes my life much easier
Never minded it much since there was always a viewer for it somewhere, but when I download images off the internet it's usually for later viewing / long term storage. By the time I was going to do any serious work on these files, such as cataloguing or evaluating cool architecture to get inspiration or ideas for a new media project, I figured either the wider support will already exist, or I'll just mass convert to a preferred file type.
the main if not only issue I had with webp were messenger apps deciding they won't upload these on any platform just because iPhone doesn't handle them... and some years after it started handling them well too
@@Sammysapphira It's not the developers problem, if google does nothing to promote the format then it belongs in their dumping ground of failed products
I always had the impression that .webp files were _supposed_ to be unsupported outside of web browsers, as its mass adoption came around the same time Google started trying to prevent people from saving copyrighted images. I mean, it would be self explanatory in the “web” part of the name.
Had this come out when I used to use the old screaming modems. This would have been a game changer because downloading at 56k having something that can compress better than JPEG and look as good would have been welcome. But in this day of broadband connection it just doesn't make any sense. It's like coming up with a better engine for the model T in the year 2024
How much extra processing does that extra 30% squeeze though. Maybe not as big a benefit as you would think back then. We were already pushing performance ;)
It might not make a big difference on your side, but the saved bandwidth benefits everyone, from small websites (who pay for the bandwidth) to ISPs whose infrastructure has a limited capacity, to large cloud providers who can end up saving terabytes each day on data transfer.
@@SteelSkin667 yes, but they said in the dial up days lol. With the size of the market and the bandwidth available to consumers there was a lot of cheap data to go around, comparatively.
@@SteelSkin667 Bandwidth is as cheap and plentiful as it's ever been. Why should I be inconvenienced and have to waste my time converting a file so some massive corporation can save $0.000000000003 on bandwidth? I know it all adds up but it's not like the greedy corporation is going to pass the savings on to their customers anyway. Rich people are already rich. They don't need any more. But like everything in this world, MILLIONS of people get screwed over and inconvenienced so a massive company can get a teeny tiny bit more profit. This is why I and other people hate webp.
You can kind-of make the same argument about hardware-accelerated JPEG decoding. Would have been great for your graphics card to have it back in the 1990s, but since then, CPUs have gotten so fast that decoding one is basically instant. And yet, Nvidia and AMD are including it on newer graphics cards. Why? Machine-learning. Training neural networks that need image data requires so many examples that decoding JPEG files actually serves as enough of a bottleneck that it's worth including dedicated hardware for the task.
In my eyes it is Googles fault. Just making your own browser support it, upload some shady cli-tools on a hidden page and call ot a day was lazy af. They should have advocated the format properly and push hard for mainstream integration, and much of the hate could have been avoided.
From a user perspective, I simply have to say... "webp is still hot ass"... As of Mid 2024, every time I find that I've unfortunately downloaded a webp file, I find that I have to convert it for almost any purpose, except for GIMP. It's still not supported enough to be anything other than an obstacle.... To clarify, I have issues setting wallpapers, uploading to websites, and storing on Imgur.
@@Sammysapphira So, because not everyone decided to play yes-man to Google's deviation from established norms, it's *their* fault rather than Google's? Whatever floats your boat, I guess.
"Uploading to websites" when the format was MADE for websites... Exactly! A lot of websites only accept PNG, JPG, GIF. 😐 Bruh. There are so many legacy websites out there, unmaintained for years. You can't even change a fricken avatar to webp, even though ALL up-to-date web browsers support webp now. The hate is justified.
According to Wikipedia, "Google announced the WebP format in September 2010, and released the first stable version of its supporting library in April 2018." It may be that most of the mainstream image editors chose not add support until a stable release became available. This is understandable: stable release versions of reusable libraries are much safer and cheaper to work with as the authors are unlikely to making changes that break software that use the library (or very least give plenty of notice if they do). If you look at the Support > Graphics software section of the Wikipedia article, you'll see many don't add support until after April 2018. My point is I don't think it's unreasonable to place some blame on Google for taking 8 years to produce a stable release. What is reasonable amount of time to produce a stable release is subjective, but this seems an awfully long time in my opinion.
What I don't like from Webp is that when I want to share a pic in webp format in Telegram, it is shown as a sticker instead of an image and then it can't be zoomed and stuff like with png or jpg
2 other reasons why webp is still somewhat hated: 1. The name is awful as it, in some ways, sounded like it would be something other than a image file. Nobody but a few wanted to have the default be called "web" with a p at the end. 2. Many, including several companies like Facebook, wanted JPEG XL instead, which was so much better than normal jpeg and was said to be capable of doing the same things as webp but with possibly better compression. But then most people within the GitHub repository got angry that Google immediately rejected it in favor of webp &/or AVIF.
The reason #2 is flat out incorrect. 1. webp predates jxl by like ... a full decade. So there's no "instead" here. 2. jxl didn't get rejected "in favour of webp" or "in favour of webp or avif" ... it got rejected solely because of avif And then there's also the bonus round: 3. All of the reasons people hate on webp also apply to jxl and avif ... especially when it comes to software support of these two. People who hate on webp for "lack of support" and then go and talk about how jxl/avif are superior have some of the smoothest brains on this planet.
@@MtTheTotoI guess they might have older devices or apps which cannot support them? It's like how people still use MP3 format despite AAC being around now for like 25 years and was literally created by the same company to address shortcomings in their previous format, but people still use it 🤷🏻♂️ Or still saving into the Word 97-2003 DOC format, instead of the compressed and more-open DOCX format Some people just stick with what they know, I guess 🤷🏻♂️
@@MtTheToto With the older file types, due to how they are wisely used, you know what you are dealing with vs Webp. Jpg= lossy static image, PNG= lossless static image, GIF= animated lossless image. Webp basically is just a container file type. I give you a random Webp file and ask you to tell me what it is. You can't make an educated guess without digging into the file properties.
@@MtTheToto Consistency primarily. That, or a program that automatically converts all jpg/png images to webp so that my folders don't look like a complete disaster. It's probably better to have the former option though due to more programs supporting jpg/png, even if webp is better. I don't want to have to tinker with shit all the time, I just want my computer to work.
Are people really still using GIF? For cartoons or logos or mostly text, use PNG For photos, use JPEG For small animations, use aPNG Why are people still using GIF? 🤷🏻♂️
We ran in to this in our own software. Turns out the standard c++ library for images lacks webp support. If you dont want to add external dependencies it wont work.
I actually love the webp format and have been using it for a long time. I have programs that can open and edit it so it's an extremely convenient way for me to save up storage space. Cloud services often also offer only very limited free storage space and using formats like webp I can sort of "exploit" this free storage space by saving tons of images and pictures that are very tiny in size. Webp's lossless compression usually also performs better than PNG. Some would argue that getting a external hard drive isn't very expensive and you'd be right to think that, but even with a ton of space I still like to keep my files tiny, it makes them easy to copy over and back-up I do get why webp used to be disliked so much though, there was a time where I also dealt with the struggle of not being able to open them in Windows explorer and such. Nowadays there's more and more apps that can open it.
I never had any issues with WebP files. But that could also be because if I wanted an image from a webpage, I would open it in Firefox and then use the Firefox menu to look at ALL images that are part of the displayed page. While viewing those images, there is a download option for just that file. This very old trick usually gets around the standard trick of putting a transparent image on top of another image so if you just try to download the image using a right-click, you would just get a transparent image instead of the image that you can see. This also lets you get any .ico files on the page as well.
@@Russeljrjsnot all applications support animated webp which is a pain, but on Linux gwenview supports it. On windows, MoonViewer. I don't know about Mac.
I've recently started to use webps for website animation projects, because gifs, jpgs and pngs are all unable to handle alpha translucency at the same time as being lossy to keep the file sizes down. That's it really, we needed a new format and for some reason that one stuck when the likes of JPEG 2000 didn't. That Adobe ignored it for so long (and you still need to jump through some hoops to make Photoshop handle animated webps) is just bizarre though. For the time being it is easier to switch over to GIMP.
I use webp all the time. Smaller then JPEG and higher quality. Also libwebp has a cleaner C API vs almost every JPEG library out there. It's like OPUS, it's new and it's great.
My biggest problem is how, when downloading a batch of files, only *some* of them are webp, while the rest or jpg or png. The other problem is that I use a simple viewing program that I've used for over 20 years now, ACDSee Classic. When I realized I would need an updated viewer for webp, I installed ACDSee Free, but found out that it did *NOT* support JPGlarge files. I've checked out other viewers, but none of them were anywhere near the ease of ACDSee. (The other problem I found is that Classic has a little description box, that was discontinued for newer versions of the software...so I'll need to keep Classic around in order to go through and copy any description I need to save.)
A few years ago i built an AWS lambda in python to recompress new images to our site. We'd get some absolutely large images 15MB each and I'd resample to standard sizes and then go to webp. We saved heaps of space, improved page load times and reduced bandwidth served via cloudfront. Lots of wins. I was amazed how good webp os and how well it was supported by browsers for a format I'd never used before.
Most web-browsers should be able to open such files fine but yes, it's odd when you get apps or online websites where AV1 videos are supported but AVIF images you get no thumbnail and they don't open Even though it's like literally the same format! 🙄
i only just recently found out that you can just open it in the default photo viewer on windows 10 and then just do ctrl+s and save it as a different file type
Used to hate webp but it's compatibility was expanded so much in the past couple years. It's completely integrated into macOS and iOS. On macOS you can right click and convert webp files to other formats under 'quick action' and not have to open image editing apps. I'm pretty sure Windows has full support for webp. Eventually digital cameras will start supporting webp. Wouldn't mind seeing a "RAW + WEBP" option on digital cameras.
not gonna lie there's a desparate need for a animated image format that's better than GIF. GIF is ancient as heck and image quality is just ass. It seriously needs to be replaced by something better.
The issue is that ONE company came up with the format and has tried to shove it down the throats of everyone else, then blames other companies for not supporting it. Kind of a dumb way to go about creating a new "standard".
@@mattelder1971 That's literally story of every single format out there BMP was developed by Microsoft, and is supported by Apple and pretty much everything out there TIFF is Adobes, yet is supported by Microsoft and Apple JPEG was made group of IBM, AT&T, Canon and Mitsubish, still supported by Microsoft and Apple for some odd reason GIF was developed by CompuServe and led to more open development of PNG
![Seungmin "그렇게, 천천히, 우리(As we are)" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/kAzmhLHePqU/mqdefault.jpg)
It's not so bad 😔
Wrong
oh ok
False.
Nope, it's TERRIBLE 😭
(Kidding, kinda!)
Press X to doubt
What I hate is websites telling me it's a PNG in the URL but ends up downloading as a webp.
@@yvan2563 A-fucken’-men
thank the wordpress plugin that tells marketing execs that it'll make their page load faster
How????
or that it tells you it'll download as a webp, but then be downloaded as a html image
@@The_Divergentrename a webp file as .png and most image viewers will still open it, might be a webp disguised as a png but idk
When 99.9 percent of users don't know the purpose of webp, don't notice any benefit, and only know of its existence because they struggle to open the damn thing, there's no wonder people hate it.
Not helped by the fact on Windows 11 and 10 you have to install "Webp Image Extensions" from the Microsoft Store first
Literally a perfect example of "people hate what they don't understand"
People reap the benefits even when they don't realize they are. If you're loading a grid of images in search results (say on Google, Amazon, whatever), using WebP instead of JPEG really could be the difference between whether the page loads in 2 seconds or in 4.
@@TheFeelTrain People hate what doesn't benefit them, but makes them have to deal with it anyway.
@@TheFeelTrain Nope. It's an example of "people hate a standard made by a corporation to lock you in trying to replace an already universal standard".
I specifically hate it because Google used it as a justification for not supporting the MUCH better JPEG-XL format that everyone besides Google wanted to be the next big image format. Backward compatible with JPEG, better compression, variable quality where it loads a lower quality first while in the background loading a higher quality and then displaying that once downloaded, etc.
The same guy created both formats
patents
@@MadsterV Both formats are open source and royalty-free.
That was about Google dropping the JPEG-XL support they had already added in Chrome in favour of AVIF (another video codec-based image format similar to WebP and HEIC). WebP support goes further back and didn't have anything to do with the AVIF vs. JXL dispute. It just got dragged into the general outcry against Google after they dropped JXL suport.
Trying to decode JPEG XL has been the worst thing ever since everything has been giving me artifacts. I ended up using the official tool to convert to Tiff just so I had something usable that wouldn't artifact like crazy.
The format can exist but my issue is when you request a .jpg, websites ignoring that request & giving you a .webp since they think they know what is best. Sometimes I want it, sometimes I very much do not… such as when downloading a file.
What? Websites store it as webp, they would need to write something to handle your request for jpeg and convert it on the fly, or store a jpeg version which then defeats the whole purpose of having webp
@@Gastell0 No, man. When you manually replace the ".wep" extension from the link in the browser with ".jpg" (the image format that was INITIALLY uploaded to the website), it doesn't want to give you the original JPG file, it just spits out the WEBP. That is 100% the website's fault. 😠
Often you don't want a compressed file FROM a compressed file (double compression), you want the initially compressed file. The one with the better quality.
What you don't understand is that bandwidth will be save in the long run. Imagine saving about 1Mb every time an image is loaded. They would add up and reduce outbound data cost.@@zdspider6778
@@zdspider6778if you're looking for a lossless file from a website it should be uploaded to a site that has lossless support.
You don't walk into a toy store buy a toy car and get upset they had no real cars.
It sounds like you're on the wrong website.
Your average social media platform or image host isn't in the business of storing the original photo or lossless formats.
Websites like WordPress automatically convert the file to webp even when the URL says PNG or jpg. It's incredibly annoying
when WEBP started to appear when i was dead sure it was an anti piracy measure to stop people from grabbing pics without paying😊
Paying?? Who's charging for webp viewers/editors??
@@SamuelSarette Nobody. The point is that it was so poorly supported by desktop applications that it was pointless or annoying to download.
I do model building and the best source of new photos is eBay. I want to see what something looks like in a specific area etc. or what a vehicle looked like etc. but webp felt like an anit download format to make eBay more money.
@@SamuelSarette They meant taking pics from Google image search or websites for free instead of paying for stock photos like for making a Powerpoint or adding pics in a video.
That's EXACTLY what it is! Because there seems to be absolutely NO SIMPLE WAY in existence to download these from the internet. I have tried all the described ways I could find on Google and literally NOTHING fking works!
You forgot the most important @ThioJoe: it is not supported on PowerPoint, you cannot import directly webp images on it, as of today
Powerpoint is not 'most important'.
and also, in vegas pro webp images get really glitchy
I don't think Photoshop supports it either
But they work in premiere for some reason
Also discord oddly will often save emotes as webp but not recognize that same file if you try to upload it back
blame Microsoft, in LibreOffice it just works
@@kevikiru PowerPoint is important if one is making presentations.
webp is the format that I forget exists but it is everywhere
And for a good reason. It's 1/10 of the size of a lossy JPEG and 1/5 the size of a lossless PNG...
Saving 90% of your bandwidth means you walk away with 90% smaller bills.
@@shapelessed what if i pay for unmetered?
@@shapelessed - I would argue that WebP makes up about 1% of all web traffic, so there's not much savings in reality.
@@DeerJerky your internet feels faster with the smaller sizes.
@@shapelessed Yeah, I’ve personally used it for a website I developed, though back then, Webkit didn’t support it, yet, so creating png versions of all images just for Safari was kind of a pain. It finally got support in (I believe) 2020-ish, just shortly after I bought my first MacBook, lol.
It's a fine format, but Google chose to completely halt the adoption of the excellent jpegxl format in favor of webp, so I hold a bit of a grudge.
Both could have co-existed, but they want to control how the internet works such as which formats can be used. Crazy a single company can hold so much power
Yeah, this made me angry. As much as I dislike Apple, I really hope they push Google and MS to support JXL on the web at minimum.
Image format support in web browsers is such a mess, honestly. No wonder so many people still think that png and jpg are the only formats that exist. :/
It's like Internet Explorer 6 all over again, only this time it's Google calling the shots.
I guess it has basically become the MP3 or H.264 of image file formats: "Good enough and widely supported so we won't switch to anything better unless forced to".
In favor of AVIF*, not WebP.
Back in 90s there was Amiga computer with its own AmigaOS and in v3 they introduced datatypes library. This was a kind of "plugin" system on the OS level that allowed for encoding and decoding image, audio and video files (and some more, like text/hypertext). All the app needed to do was use the datatypes library from the OS and then it was automatically compatible with all the formats for which you had the plugins. For example, when PNG format was introduced, the author (Cloanto company) released a datatype plugin for AmigaOS and suddenly all already existing apps suddenly became compatible with the new format. Magic!
It still baffles me how we are 30 years later, Amiga is dead, but neither Windows nor macOS implemented such a briliant plugin system for multimedia formats.
.webp: I am the least loved file.
.heic: hold my apple juice!
.avif: hold my root beer
I never downloaded any of those so I have no reason to hate them.
HEIF and AVIF are fine if you have the codecs installed.
@@Crlarl Yeah, good luck with that.
@@RERM001
Thanks. I genuinely don't understand why people dislike HEIF or AVIF.
The reason why I hate it is because most apps and programs recognize it as a web page or something else instead of an actual picture
And you think it makes sense to hate the format instead of those programs?
Or maybe those app dev also hate webp, wouldn't blame the if they dont add support for a format people don't want to use
Something's messed up with your PC if that's the case.
If your PC opens a WEBP image in the browser, it means you set your browser to do that by default, probably due to lack of other programs that can open it.
Not true at all.
@sujimayne these cobfig changes are probably not consented to by the user (e.g. edge on macos automatically opens web and webm files in the browser instead of preview or QuickTime player)
The thing really got me was that on some websites there would be a picture with a known extension: .jpg, .png, .gif... When I downloaded that picture it ended up as a .webp. I cannot seem to reproduce that behavior now though.
WordPress shows all images as their original file extension, but it still loads webp if your browser supports it (which all basically do)
The website owners probably converted the .png/.gif/.jpg files to webp without changing the name. Browsers only care about the mime type *(image/webp).* Most browsers can detect when the extension is wrong and will automatically fix it based on the mime type.
The URL is not like a file path on your local system. Just because a URL ends on .jpg does not mean that the response that the server will send to your request is also of that filetype.
In praxis, it often works like this:
1. If a user uploads an image, the server stores the image as it was sent and generates a URL that often still contains the original file name, for example .jpg.
2. The server then generates compressed versions, for example in .webp. If another user calls the URL to the image with its original .jpg ending, the server will give them the .webp file because it reduces traffic.
3. The .jpg file may still be accessible in some way, for example if the website has an account that lets the uploader view and edit their own uploads. Then the user would get the original file to perform edits on (since that's the highest quality version available), and new .webp versions would be created afterwards.
@@T33K3SS3LCH3N Thanks for the info. I had no idea things were that flexible/complicated. I don't like it, but it wasn't designed for me. I'm sure the web runs a lot faster because of it.
I have experience this extension format switch, too. It just occurred to me that when I use Chrome and want to save a jpg or png image Chrome saves it as a webp. I’ll put money on the table that Chrome is converting the original image to webp.
What's also mad is how some apps or devices support AV1 video (that royalty-free format lots of big-companies partnered to make), but not AVIF, which is the still-image format that comes from AV1.
AVIF is basically the same as one frame of an AV1 video -- like if you were to pause. So how can AVIF images not be supported where AV1 video is, they're like the same-thing! 🤷🏻♂️
AVIF has somewhat a different container for AV1 data, similar to HEIF. However it shouldn't be too hard for developers to support it.
The same is true of WebP as well, it's essentially a still frame of a VP8 video codec, at least in lossy mode.
Video codecs have always been a mess. You can implement PNG or JPG decoders from scratch in a day, those are well documented and easy to understand. Linking to a multi-megabyte black-box codec library just to load an image file isn't feasible, except for a program that works with videos anyway.
AVIF without AV1 hardware encoding/decoding is **incredibly** expensive.
@@gotoastalmaybe if you're decoding hundreds of millions of them lol.
Not being able to tell whether an image is animated or not or whether it's been compressed lossy or losslessly is the opposite of good design
Good point. GIF really should have been split into two formats.
Then again, from what little I remember about its file structure, animation might have been a bolted-on hack, as I know most software that can read GIFs but doesn't support animation will decode the first frame just fine, then ignore the rest of the file.
Pretty sure APNG/MNG are basically PNG images with some extra chunks for animation control and multiple sets of image data, much like animated GIFs. Again, it's been a long time since I last read anything about the file formats.
On the other hand, we should stop relying on file extensions as a way to query file format.
@@negirno Not a problem for software to just check for the file signatures of supported formats (and a lot will check for other supported formats if the expected one for the file extension can't be found), but the extensions are very much needed for humans. If you've got a list of file names, you need some way to tell what's what, and extensions get the job done. Could it be done some other way? Possibly, but extensions are the only one I know of that can be done with just the text of the filename alone.
Yeah. I am yet to see anyone or any website use the lossless compression.
I learned recently that PNG now supports animation.
I love the fact that Thio actually makes the captions and time markers, even fot the ad. I take that as a sing of respect to the viewer and their convenience. Thank you ❤❤
With png we knew it was coming for a long time. With webp it just showed up without notice
I remember the days when standards were governed by a group like IEEE or RIAA. These days mega companies like Google can decide for world standards.
I think the only problem with WebP is incompatibility, like image preview and ability to view in programs.
The file size is superior to PNG and allows full color animated gif style images.
However, incompatibility is a major problem, because if you can't see or edit the image, then it's annoying to convert it so you can.
There is a way to get Windows to show webp in previews but I can't remember how. I think it's a Microsoft plugin download. I am much happier now that I can get previews of webp, avif and svg files and view them all with a simple double click.
Right. If it doesn't work in even one of the apps you normally rely on, then the bytes saved don't help you at all. Local storage is never an issue with images downloaded from websites.
actually you don't need any third party software to preview/display it. Just rename it into .png and voila!
eg:
example.webp -> example.png
Easiest way I found - download and install free irfanview and associate webp images with it (installs that way out of the box if memory serves me well - then do a "save as" with your favourite format - jpeg, png, even bmp I guess if you like it that much ...
@@gerdd6692 Yes I have that and other apps, but the problem is app things that work with jpg and png, do not all support webp, because it is a newer format. That's all I meant.
When you go to hell, it's just a bunch of avif and animated webp files.
And occasionally a FLIC rendered with 3D Studio R3 for DOS.
@@SianaGearzgood old FLIC and FLIF 😭😭😭
and macos
so, Linux is useful everywhere, confirmed
AVIF without AV1 hardware encoding/decoding is *incredibly* expensive.
I believe that it's not the format that should be hated, but the software developers who have been unable or unwilling to add a fully open source format to their product for 13 years.
My editors still do not support webp so usually I have to find some workaround to get a png, but it's not just that. it's the fact so many websites insist on giving you webp _instead_ of the format you ask for. Even if you go to a url ending in .jpg or .png it will download as a webp. Search results. I click on a result for a png, after searching for a png, and the website redirects to a webp.
Screw that format and screw the web admins that use it. Give me what I want, not what you think I want.
WordPress shows the file's original format, but converts images to webp to serve webp images when the browser supports it, which is why this problem happens. Can't WordPress just use srcSet!
You may be changing the URL to be .PNG or .JPEG but they likely do not have a PNG or JPEG version for you to use.
WebP is considered web safe(the vast majority of users will not have any issues with webp). So many websites may not have PNG or JPEG at all anymore.
It's not serving what they think you want, they're serving what they have.
Is it really the websites job to serve files in the format you want? It's okay for a website to no longer store old formats that are no longer needed anymore.
I have a couple of small scale image hosting websites. I used to keep a few versions of images on hand and display the one the requester wanted.
When I re-wrote the backend I checked my analytics and found only a handful requests were for formats other than webp... For the entire website for the month.
In the end I removed all of it and only store and serve webp.
@@user-sf8du No the url I'm going to already has the png/jpg extension in many cases. For wikis I _do_ know they have it in that original format because they say so on the page that it was uploaded in that format.
At least for fandom wikis and some others I can append ?original=1 or format=original to get it, but there are so many sites that just don't have any way to get around it.
I wish APNG caught on instead for lossless animated images. It has better compression and performance than Webp in most cases, and took basically no effort to support if you already had PNG support.
The APNG-MPNG war allowed WEBP/WEBM to swoop in and undercut them both. 🤦
I agree, apng was much better than this garbage.
why would you want apng? Most animated images are just reaction image garbage and don't need archival quality.
webp wins because it can use lossy compression without it looking like it's straight out of 1992.
@@Goodmanperson55 maybe if animated image formats weren't all garbage people would use them for more than garbage?
@@Goodmanperson55 Animated art? GIF is super chunky if you zoom in even just a little.
One reason for hating webp today is because not everyone decided to update to the newer version of Adobe software (which require monthly subscription).
Good for them. No one should have to.
You can get a free plugin that lets you use webp files in older versions of Photoshop. 😊
XdanielArt has made a neat chart of Adobe alternatives
Krita opens webp images just fine, so that didn’t affect me. :P
Why Adobe? Just get XNview or anything like it.
FYI the lowly Paint application in Windows can open webp files that can then be converted to other formats using the Save As option.
For as useless as paint is, it's very helpful sometimes
Yeah I always copy the webp image to MS Paint and then save it as JPEG/PNG. A little more time waste but it's better than nothing
@@sihamhamda47 But that's only a thing on Windows 11. Windows 10 doesn't have that ability.
@@tylerboothman4496 It's not useless my dude, you don't know the strengths of it.
On ChromeOS just saving it as a png extension just auto converts it. Only good feature of it tbh
nowadays the biggest load on websites isn't the pictures anymore. It was in the 90s. Today it's several megabytes of javascript bloat and tracking sofware.
Autoplaying video ads in the corner. 😒
Megabytes? Feels closer to gigabytes
It's a great format for web developers to keep file sizes down, but sucks for everything else haha
I have used it because when used on a webpage it supports transparency, so you can layer them on top of each other
That could be a major use case for webp. The only other major options are PNG or GIF. PNG is decent for a lossless format, but file sizes can be prohibitively large. GIF is OK for small images but only supports 1-bit alpha. 😒 There are a few other lossy formats with alpha, but have practically no web support.
webm: one of the greatest video containers of all time second only to mkv, if only it had better support (tho Microsoft's mkv support also sucks)
webp: I will rename you to png or jpeg and if it gets corrupted then it doesn't exist
webm is the funny forchan 4mat.
WebM is mkv. The only difference is restricted features to be WebM compliant.
@@MiBoxX11 Which means it's easier to have support. mkv is technically better, webm is more usably better. Unfortunately "easier to support" does not mean "supported." But most stuff now does it fine bar the Windows player having a stroke intermittently.
Microsoft's media player and their codec (Media Foundation) is mostly sucks lmao.
I recommend to use K-Lite Codec Pack (much better codecs) or VLC (much better player) instead
I just use an online image converter but it would be nice if the photos app and other software started to finally support it
I use Irfanview and it has supported WebP since 2011. Animated files have been supported since 2018.
Irfan Škiljan deserves respect for creating and updating Irfanview. I sent him a couple of Euros years ago. I probably should do it again in thanks for all of the use that I have continued to enjoy since then.
@@Thankz4sharing Also Irfanview user here.
Not on my version.
And I'm sure I bought my current PC way beyond 2011.
I use Irfanview often, in fact, yesterday and my experience has been it has never displayed a WebP downloaded image or an animated WebP. Is there a setting I'm missing as I'd love to be proven wrong on this.
I use Irfanview as my primary image viewer; but it can't convert webp transparency correctly, which is annoying.
The main reason I hate it is because Google decided to push it as a fake thing, even real PNG photos (that when opening the image URL directly and using control+s in the browser to save it, it saved as PNG properly) when right-clicking it and saving the image it saved as WEBP
Fun fact: Some programs like Krita and Affinity Photo can open .webp files and you can easily convert them into .png or .tiff files. But once they were compressed as those files, then they're compressed forever. However, there are high quality .webp files that can easily be converted into .png's or .tiff/.tif files and go from there.
On LInux, applications not supporting webp basically arent a thing any more since about 10 years. It really puzzled me when I found out that webp is so hated, for me, it was just a normal image format like jpg or png just with more features and maybe a few legacy apps not supporting it
@@aheendwhz1Various image viewers still don't, unfortunately, including the default one on Steam Deck's desktop mode. It's a pity because I like WebP too.
How can Windows 7 Photo viewer open webp but Windows 10 Photos couldn't for a stupidly long time
I'm pretty sure I remember there is/was a small plugin made by Google you had to install on Windows 7 that added support for photo-viewer and explorer-preview.
@@Mat2095 that's interesting
Maybe it got installed by default later on. Some webp images were buggy tho
Yes it could do that, but the images were always displayed dimmer
@@Mat2095 I'll have to check, maybe it also works on wiin10, none of my comps show webp as anything other than a random browser file with that browser icon in thumbnail view.
Edit, had to find a forum post that linked directly to the setup exe as it wasn't listed on googl's webpage (only source code ye has to compile), thumbnails in file manager now work, gimp and irfanview still won't open them. oddly they open in media player labeled as "windows photo viewer", lol.
The instant premiere supported webp, my beef with it was over. Sorry "Save Image As PNG" Chrome extension, you were a real one... but it's time for me to move on o7
Holy crap, John Bringus in the wild?
What about JPEG XL? And AV1F?
Developer/maintainer of node-webpmux here. Desktop/mobile Discord gets hate from me for STILL not supporting animated WebP images despite basically just being Chrome under the hood. Apparently their upstream resizer code doesn't support them still for some reason. Google gets points in my book for using RIFF as the container format. Makes parsing the metadata extremely simple.
A note about the 'Multi-Threading'' checkbox on your cWebp GUI: there's almost zero reason to ever use it. According to the source code, the -mt flag is only applied to certain parts of the alpha layer compression.. the overall compression of the RGB etc layers are always single-threaded.
Desktop Discord is the worst. They haven't updated their Chrome version in years and break things that work in the browser.
Why do they even recommend you using the Electron app? Even operating system integration is better when using the web version in a modern browser (at least on Linux).
@@aheendwhz1 Is Chrome 124/Electron 30.1 really that old?
@@billy65bob Oh, maybe they updated without me noticing? For literal years, they were stuck und Electron 13, then 17. Screen sharing didn't work, everything was sluggish and pixelated… Just started Discord for the first time in a while, and it looks better than it did back then. Maybe, I'll give it a shot again.
I'd say that "It supports both lossless and lossy file types" is a deal-breaker in and of itself. I don't want to have to use a special tool, just to check whether something is lossily compressed. It's bad enough that I have to write animation-stripping passes to force APNG files back to PNG spec-compliance if I want to support uploaded user content in my sites.
(Yes, the reason the libpng reference implementation doesn't support APNG is because the PNG spec, having learned from GIF, explicitly says a PNG file header indicates that what follows contains one or more concrete representations (eg. full, thumbnail) of a single abstract image, so APNG files violate the PNG spec.)
Yup if you can't tell at a glance there's a problem
person: I created a lossless picture format that could save a bunch of storage!
every website: double it and give it to the next person
This literally makes no sense
I actually laughed out loud at this, gold
It's funny how GIF, one of the worst formats, is loved and supported widely but WEBP, which is one of the most efficient ones, is hated and has minimal support even in Google products.
Seriously. Gif only gets a pass because everything can open it. It has terrible mandatory lossy compression, a capped frame rate of 50fps, and almost no api information available in the file itself so scrubbing through a gif animation is unreasonably difficult.
I remember how gutted I felt when we had to drop support for animation scrubbing for all formats because it wasn't possible with gif without significant research and development dollars we didn't have.
@@lpnp9477 Yeah, it's awful. Some companies like twitter have been smart to just convert GIFs to mp4 and then just pretending that they are playing GIFs lmao
@@lpnp9477 actually, GIF is not lossy, it is pretty much lossless. But the downside is that it only supports 256 colors.
So if you convert your normal 8-bit RGB, which is around 16.7 million colors to GIF, it just looks bad because it has to shift to the nearest color, and it starts to look weird.
You can actually create the same image in theory though, IF you have unlimited resolution. You can just place colors side by side, so when you zoom out enough, it would blend and you'll see a near-correct color.
One more thing I hate about webp is that I do not see if the image I have is lossy or lossless. With png and jpg I immediately saw, oh it is a png file so it is a lossless image.
WebP wasn't a problem until the past few years for me when I started to see it used on some websites. Plus there was a vulnerability discovered in the format and/or libwebp late last year, so there may still be some undiscovered kinks. At least I have Gimp to convert it if I need to view it outside of my browser.
I always loved webp, avif and jxl formats. I'm appreciating people trying to improve older codecs developed 30+ years ago.
As for support, it's hard to support everything in yout software. Sometimes companies purposely choose not to support some format to eliminate competition (Google Chrome with jxl right now).
Webp is pretty established format supported on Android, Windows and most programs. Avif is supported by pretty much any modern browser and recent Android.
On Linux you don't usually have to wait so long for the format to get support, right now webp, avif and jxl are supported in popular image viewers.
I would say WebP and AVIF are decent ideas in the surface, but using a video codec as an image codec is never going to be as good as making a specifically image focused codec (like JOEG XL). Video frames are designed to be shown for fractions of a second instead of looked at closely
It has some advantages, you can rely on video decoders to show the image without introducing additional codec to your software. Also in theory you could use the hardware acceleration designed for video decoding.
However still video frames are not progressive nor responsive so you have to wait for entire image to decode (unlike jpeg and jxl which can load image partially).
The problem that JPEG successors always run into is that JPEG is actually really good. Not just "for something developed in 1992", it remains competitive today and it is hard to make enough improvement to be worth the hassle of changing.
That is why you've never heard of JPEG2000.
@@CptJistuce similar reason on as why most people still use mp3, it’s “good enough”
@@CrushedAsian255 Only moreso.
MP3's limitations are well-documented and other formats do offer significant advantages in both quality and compression rate, and the additional processing overhead they usually incur is trivial now that the 486 is in a museum.
JPEG, though... the advantages are surprisingly small. It has jokingly been suggested to be alien technology from the future more than once because it is simply too good for the early nineties.
Though JPEG2000 has seen adoption in the professional world in scenarios where any quality improvement is meaningful but storage limits preclude use of lossless formats. It is, ridiculously enough, the format that digital theater projectors use for the visual portion, instead of a "real" video format.
(Full disclosure: I re-ripped all my CDs as FLAC years ago and have a preference for better formats on downloads, because I can hear the difference and it bugs me.)
I will continue to hate it as long as it isn’t supported by Davinci Resolve
That is entirely on the developers of Resolve, though.
As long as you have the "Webp Image Extensions" installed from the Microsoft Store, any app on Windows can then use that support in their own app. It's up to them if they do though
oof that’s rough
@@dftfire If it's up to the devs then it's not much different then if you didn't need the package.
davinci is all about archaic file formats, it doesnt even support ogg
neat little useful app youve made, I've made a quick little PR to add a big QOL improvement: browse buttons (a long with a crash fix and a usability improvement relating to the selection of dwebp's file formats)
Literally hours ago I tried downloading an animated image, a gif, to put it inside OBS, to have a funny alien cat talking in a loop in the corner of the screen. And it was a webp, and it didn't support it so I had to manually convert it to gif using some site.
the worst is downloading an animated gif (gift w/ silent t) and it's actually a mp4 or other movie file.. lame.
There's actually a good reason for that, because the GIF format is actually *terrible*. It's so bad that basically no one uses it for still images. People still use it for animations because for a while it was the only well-supported format that supported it, but now there's a culture of animated GIFs keeping it alive.
There's a good chance an MP4 of an animation will be higher quality, higher frame rate, and *much* smaller file size than GIF. Like, an MP4 will be 200 KB and the equivalent GIF is like 10 MB and looks terrible.
@@stephencoakleyThe main reasons people kept using animated GIF were
1. It is a dead-simple format.
2. It lets you upload movies to sites that only support the display of static images.
1 is why hosts hate it. The simplicity means an animated GIF gets very large relative to proper video files.
2 is... frankly, animated GIF being the same file type as regular GIF was a bad choice to begin with for multiple reasons. I hate that everyone keeps trying to repeat the sins of their predecessors.
@@PPNStudio Yes, I dowload GIFs (pronounced like the peanut butter, or giraffe, or gist, or gesture) often myself.
@@stephencoakley I actually sometimes still use GIF for small screen recordings because the program I use for this just insists on recording audio *which I don't want* and gif conveniently doesn't support audio. For me the main reason video formats aren't a good fit for "GIF like animations" is that they support audio
I am now liking this format, much compression and no real lost of quality!
I write a script to convert my storage images to webp and I saved so much space!
Thanks!
as a student, when making slideshows in canva and google slides webp isnt supported and it really frustrates me, especially because on chromebooks the only way to convert them is to use a tool like cloud convert and often the webp images are the best ones. If i have to go through such a big rigamarole to use a picture in a slide then usually I will just find a different image.
Its fate is sealed when they named it "web" something.
Should have given it a more generic name if it meant to be platform independent.
Whatever Excellent Binary Picture.
What about "web" ties it to a specific platform?
@@eadweard. "web" ties it to the INTERNET instead of for local use, that's the OP's point. People don't think of it as a format that you can use in general, they think of it as exclusively for webpages. It doesn't matter if that's accurate or not, psychology is powerful. 🤷
@@I.____.....__...__However, the "network" in PNG seems to be no problem for some reason. Psychology is weird indeed.
@@I.____.....__...__portable network graphics
My biggest problem has been, when I'm looking specifically for PNG I get JPEG. When I'm looking specifically for JPEG I get Webp.
It happens because site owners have no respect for users.
I've grown to love the webp file format. I've been modding the game where's my water, and that game stores most of it's images in lossless webp files (and that was back in 2011). Heck, the script they used to create the webp files was found, and it looks like they used the libwebp programs.
Bro i loved that game. One of a few good mobile games
"This video has proper subtitles" great idea! Will use it. I have a countdown-timer for next chapter, to give an idea in return :) Thanks a million!
It's nice. But they should have different extensions for lossy, lossless, and animated. Some people would like to know directly from the extension.
In Win 11 it doesn't work by default, unless you download an external lib to view it. But even with it, it is opened in a very over-saturated way, -> useless crap. So I convert it to .jpg format.
Same in Windows 10.
"Webp Image Extensions" has to be installed first from the Microsoft Store
@@dftfire yeah indeed!
This is very untrue. Update your photo applications. It is supported by default.
Yeah, but if it's a lossy webp... since it can be both lossy and lossless under the same extension (terrible design), you would be compressing an already compressed format. Which is terrible. You're basically making an MP3 from an AAC. Or an AVI from an MP4. 😐
I think we all agree that we should get rid of JPEG before all of our memes turn into abstract paintings. JXL sounded promising but Google waged war against it in favor of WEBP and now it's almost unheard of.
JXL or maybe AVIF should be the future. AVIF has the problem of having no progressive decoding and JXL has Google hating it so currently it makes sense WEBP is still the standard for smaller images
Mozilla has JXL support. but Chrome not having it is basically a dead end. ie 'Google's "disturbing amount of control" over the web and web browsers.'
There is one downside to WebP that I still find a problem. Like WebM, it has forced chroma subsampling equivalent to JPEG's 4:2:0. At higher quality settings, this causes a noticeable quality drop, making images fuzzier than JPEG with full chroma (4:4:4). It's very noticeable.
Depending on the image, a 95-98% JPEG image can be visually indistinguishible from the original, in my experience. Not so with WebP, even at 100% quality. That chromatic aberration is always there.
It's especially annoying now that there are AI ways to remove JPEG artifacts that work quite well.
I do use lossless WebP, as it does not change the color subsampling. But not lossy WebP.
I like that you made your own GUI programs for those converters! Seems like something I would do if I was bored. Fun stuff!
Probably the biggest problem is manifest by the fact that your section titled “Google’s official WebP tools” is actually a rather significant chunk of the video. For people like you and I who understand, live, breathe, and speak technology, that’s great: 99 of people don’t want a tool to make it work, especially not command line tools. They want it to just work. Doesn’t matter how good the format is: google fumbled its release and rollout, and second chances don’t come cheap in IT.
2:56 “It has the latest gallium nitride technology…” You mean the stuff in blue LEDs?
I hate heic or whatever format apple has. It's not supported on my pc and when I try to get the format addon from ms store, it asks for money. I've googled and found that there are free means to get the addon, but I've tried those and it did not work for me for some reason.
ImageGlass. You're welcome.
@@Wahinies it is not free.
Me the moment I saw those 4 letters together: OH GAWD NOT DIS ONE!
I volunteer at a church where everyone seems to use Apple stuff (I was raised on Windows) and pretty much none of the editing software on their Mac seems to support the suckers so I end up waiting like two minutes just for IOS to convert it... Which leads to me having to wait even more time to upload them to the software. This sucks pretty badly when you have like 15 minutes to get everything ready. 😓
But seriously, this one is so annoying that even it's intended usage is annoying.
Jpeg XL is functionally and performance wise better than webp. I hate webp because Google is pushing for the use of webp and dumped out jpegxl despite it gaining legitimate traction in the industry.
the fact that I could only open webp and webm in browser at the time had me fooled that the file was only a link.
so I avoided it like the plague
I've been on the webp train for years, ever since i asked a friend for an image and they were able tl return it in higher quality and smaller size than I'd ever imagined. It worked on Discord and that was good enough for me.
I've been using webp as a replacement for animated GIFs for years now for anything i need to show an animated image. never really understood the hate. whenever a software doesnt support the format, i get mad at the software, not the format lol. i love webp.
biggest problem with GIF for me is you can only have framerates at multiples of 10ms, so for example 60fps is impossible. if im trying to show a visual of something from a 60fps game, it will have to be sped up or slowed down.
remember all those dumb articles that would have like 20 giant animated GIFs all playing on the same page and lag the hell out of the page, and they would all render at like 2FPS while they loaded? if the page had been using webp, there would be no issue.
You... don't want a 60 fps GIF. Trust me on that. Compression is *_terrible_* for anything longer than 2-3 seconds.
You want an MP4 instead. Compressed with something like VP9, H.265 (HEVC), AV1. You get both better quality AND lower file size. 👍👍
@@zdspider6778 yup my use case is specifically for things under 5 seconds or so, typically very short clips indicating a sequence or input string (usually alongside text supplements)
WebP is a better alternative to nearly every other image format (jpg, png, gif, bmp, etc.), which supports lossless/lossy compression, transparency, and animation, all at a much smaller file size, and yet non-browser applications still refuse to support it properly.
It's a shame, as a web developer I've been using webp for years and didn't realize the support wasn't there until recently for mainstream apps. I definitely hope it continues to replace the inferior formats for good.
Which is so funny to me because WebP sucks in efficiency and features compared to modern formats like JXL. The image format world is literally 30 years behind in technology, by the time WebP is well-supported I'm sure people will learn to hate the next generation of image formats because their crappy software has awful format support.
A PNG decoder can be implemented in less than 400 lines of C code. It's maintainable, debuggable, simple and fast. No need to include tons of black-box 3rd-party code for a VP8 video decoder just to load a damn WebP image file.
If it doesn't play nice with me, and all those other formats you mentioned (in parens) do play very nice, then I beg to differ.
"as a web developer"
here's your main issue, you chase new features every 1 second whenever they come out
@@Tommy43040 Webp is nearly 15 years old and still isn't used by most websites, so it's literally the worst example of web devs hopping on a bandwagon.
People need to stop crying over technological advancement. If an image format is over a decade old and sees more than 10% adoption, there is absolutely no excuse for an image viewer / editor to not support that format. If your reason to hate WebP is software not supporting it, maybe you should be using better software.
Format nerds moved on from WebP to things like AVIF and JXL years ago, so I suppose those will be the next new hated formats once websites start using them
you can put the .bat file in the shell:sendto to make that you can right click and send to that .bat file and covert it, that's how i use it and it makes my life much easier
Never minded it much since there was always a viewer for it somewhere, but when I download images off the internet it's usually for later viewing / long term storage. By the time I was going to do any serious work on these files, such as cataloguing or evaluating cool architecture to get inspiration or ideas for a new media project, I figured either the wider support will already exist, or I'll just mass convert to a preferred file type.
the main if not only issue I had with webp were messenger apps deciding they won't upload these on any platform just because iPhone doesn't handle them... and some years after it started handling them well too
GOD I thought was crazy, I hate it still.
Same - so many programs and devices just don't support webp, so it continues to be a gigantic pain 😞
crazy?
@@TechOverwrite You should direct that "pain" towards developers of the applications..... NOT the format....
@@Sammysapphira It's not the developers problem, if google does nothing to promote the format then it belongs in their dumping ground of failed products
I always had the impression that .webp files were _supposed_ to be unsupported outside of web browsers, as its mass adoption came around the same time Google started trying to prevent people from saving copyrighted images. I mean, it would be self explanatory in the “web” part of the name.
Had this come out when I used to use the old screaming modems. This would have been a game changer because downloading at 56k having something that can compress better than JPEG and look as good would have been welcome.
But in this day of broadband connection it just doesn't make any sense. It's like coming up with a better engine for the model T in the year 2024
How much extra processing does that extra 30% squeeze though. Maybe not as big a benefit as you would think back then. We were already pushing performance ;)
It might not make a big difference on your side, but the saved bandwidth benefits everyone, from small websites (who pay for the bandwidth) to ISPs whose infrastructure has a limited capacity, to large cloud providers who can end up saving terabytes each day on data transfer.
@@SteelSkin667 yes, but they said in the dial up days lol. With the size of the market and the bandwidth available to consumers there was a lot of cheap data to go around, comparatively.
@@SteelSkin667 Bandwidth is as cheap and plentiful as it's ever been. Why should I be inconvenienced and have to waste my time converting a file so some massive corporation can save $0.000000000003 on bandwidth? I know it all adds up but it's not like the greedy corporation is going to pass the savings on to their customers anyway. Rich people are already rich. They don't need any more. But like everything in this world, MILLIONS of people get screwed over and inconvenienced so a massive company can get a teeny tiny bit more profit. This is why I and other people hate webp.
You can kind-of make the same argument about hardware-accelerated JPEG decoding. Would have been great for your graphics card to have it back in the 1990s, but since then, CPUs have gotten so fast that decoding one is basically instant.
And yet, Nvidia and AMD are including it on newer graphics cards. Why? Machine-learning. Training neural networks that need image data requires so many examples that decoding JPEG files actually serves as enough of a bottleneck that it's worth including dedicated hardware for the task.
4:40 can we know the plugin/extension name or download link?
Thank you for including proper subtitles! Us deaf folk are used to relying on awful auto generated subs.
The quote “ character isn’t showing up on my subs, it’s coming up with " instead. Watching on Apple TV.
In my eyes it is Googles fault. Just making your own browser support it, upload some shady cli-tools on a hidden page and call ot a day was lazy af.
They should have advocated the format properly and push hard for mainstream integration, and much of the hate could have been avoided.
It's open bloody source, Google can't force Adobe and Microsoft to stop putting ads, spyware into their products and do something productive instead
From a user perspective, I simply have to say... "webp is still hot ass"... As of Mid 2024, every time I find that I've unfortunately downloaded a webp file, I find that I have to convert it for almost any purpose, except for GIMP. It's still not supported enough to be anything other than an obstacle.... To clarify, I have issues setting wallpapers, uploading to websites, and storing on Imgur.
The problem isn't webp.... it's the application developers, and a little bit of user skill issue, too.
@@Sammysapphira That is true but until they do the hate is real.
@@Sammysapphira So, because not everyone decided to play yes-man to Google's deviation from established norms, it's *their* fault rather than Google's? Whatever floats your boat, I guess.
"Uploading to websites" when the format was MADE for websites... Exactly!
A lot of websites only accept PNG, JPG, GIF. 😐 Bruh.
There are so many legacy websites out there, unmaintained for years. You can't even change a fricken avatar to webp, even though ALL up-to-date web browsers support webp now. The hate is justified.
And I'm pretty sure imgur converts them to webp by default. Even if you upload an mp4, it still gets converted to animated webp.
According to Wikipedia, "Google announced the WebP format in September 2010, and released the first stable version of its supporting library in April 2018."
It may be that most of the mainstream image editors chose not add support until a stable release became available. This is understandable: stable release versions of reusable libraries are much safer and cheaper to work with as the authors are unlikely to making changes that break software that use the library (or very least give plenty of notice if they do). If you look at the Support > Graphics software section of the Wikipedia article, you'll see many don't add support until after April 2018.
My point is I don't think it's unreasonable to place some blame on Google for taking 8 years to produce a stable release. What is reasonable amount of time to produce a stable release is subjective, but this seems an awfully long time in my opinion.
Having said that, now the stable release has been available for six years, any software that still doesn't support WebP, well that's squarely on them.
What I don't like from Webp is that when I want to share a pic in webp format in Telegram, it is shown as a sticker instead of an image and then it can't be zoomed and stuff like with png or jpg
Yes this! Main reason why i cant STAND webp!
Webp is the AVI of image formats.
You think you can view it, but you're never sure which codec it's using.
2 other reasons why webp is still somewhat hated:
1. The name is awful as it, in some ways, sounded like it would be something other than a image file. Nobody but a few wanted to have the default be called "web" with a p at the end.
2. Many, including several companies like Facebook, wanted JPEG XL instead, which was so much better than normal jpeg and was said to be capable of doing the same things as webp but with possibly better compression. But then most people within the GitHub repository got angry that Google immediately rejected it in favor of webp &/or AVIF.
The reason #2 is flat out incorrect.
1. webp predates jxl by like ... a full decade. So there's no "instead" here.
2. jxl didn't get rejected "in favour of webp" or "in favour of webp or avif" ... it got rejected solely because of avif
And then there's also the bonus round:
3. All of the reasons people hate on webp also apply to jxl and avif ... especially when it comes to software support of these two. People who hate on webp for "lack of support" and then go and talk about how jxl/avif are superior have some of the smoothest brains on this planet.
I STILL hate it. There should be a default option to download ANY webp as a jpg/png. BUILT INTO THE BROWSER.
Why do you want to save an old and unoptimized format to your hard drive ?
why something YOU need should be BUILT INTO the browser? you know plugins/extensions are a thing?
@@MtTheTotoI guess they might have older devices or apps which cannot support them?
It's like how people still use MP3 format despite AAC being around now for like 25 years and was literally created by the same company to address shortcomings in their previous format, but people still use it 🤷🏻♂️
Or still saving into the Word 97-2003 DOC format, instead of the compressed and more-open DOCX format
Some people just stick with what they know, I guess 🤷🏻♂️
@@MtTheToto With the older file types, due to how they are wisely used, you know what you are dealing with vs Webp. Jpg= lossy static image, PNG= lossless static image, GIF= animated lossless image. Webp basically is just a container file type.
I give you a random Webp file and ask you to tell me what it is. You can't make an educated guess without digging into the file properties.
@@MtTheToto Consistency primarily. That, or a program that automatically converts all jpg/png images to webp so that my folders don't look like a complete disaster. It's probably better to have the former option though due to more programs supporting jpg/png, even if webp is better. I don't want to have to tinker with shit all the time, I just want my computer to work.
It doesn't make sense that programs supported .jpg and .gif but not .webp
Are people really still using GIF?
For cartoons or logos or mostly text, use PNG
For photos, use JPEG
For small animations, use aPNG
Why are people still using GIF? 🤷🏻♂️
Never heard of aPNG until now @@dftfire
We ran in to this in our own software. Turns out the standard c++ library for images lacks webp support. If you dont want to add external dependencies it wont work.
It doesn't make since that applications support formats that have been around for decades longer than brand new ones? 😂 ok
@@dftfireMost people don't know apng exists. If someone wants a moving image format (not video), most people would default to GIF
I actually love the webp format and have been using it for a long time.
I have programs that can open and edit it so it's an extremely convenient way for me to save up storage space.
Cloud services often also offer only very limited free storage space and using formats like webp I can sort of "exploit" this free storage space by saving tons of images and pictures that are very tiny in size.
Webp's lossless compression usually also performs better than PNG.
Some would argue that getting a external hard drive isn't very expensive and you'd be right to think that, but even with a ton of space I still like to keep my files tiny, it makes them easy to copy over and back-up
I do get why webp used to be disliked so much though, there was a time where I also dealt with the struggle of not being able to open them in Windows explorer and such.
Nowadays there's more and more apps that can open it.
@C_Corpze why would you say you have apps that can edit webp and not name them? Comes off as a weird humble brag, rather than a helpful comment.
I never had any issues with WebP files.
But that could also be because if I wanted an image from a webpage, I would open it in Firefox and then use the Firefox menu to look at ALL images that are part of the displayed page.
While viewing those images, there is a download option for just that file.
This very old trick usually gets around the standard trick of putting a transparent image on top of another image so if you just try to download the image using a right-click, you would just get a transparent image instead of the image that you can see.
This also lets you get any .ico files on the page as well.
Love it. Size:Quality ratio of a webp is hard to beat, supports animations, has alpha channel, doesn't eat up a ton of cpu.
Best. Image. Format.
How do you view the animation of webp tho? Outside of browser
@@Russeljrjs Irfanview with plugins, XNView, XNView MP, Push Video Wallpaper, Steam Wallpaper Engine.
@@Russeljrjsnot all applications support animated webp which is a pain, but on Linux gwenview supports it. On windows, MoonViewer. I don't know about Mac.
Google needs to just support JPEG XL now
not another "jif" sayer 😭😭😭😭
@@me3tthebeat that's the right pronunciation
@@darkHaresyou can say it in any way you know? its not like you can only say it the "right way".
@BlockGuy1 I like to stick with the way its inventor says it.
@@darkHares alright.
But I really like saying it the other way.
@BlockGuy1 Man, I love peaceful disagreement on the internet.
I completely misunderstood webp. I got the tools downloaded and installed before your video was over. (You get a big THUMBS UP. 👍)
I've recently started to use webps for website animation projects, because gifs, jpgs and pngs are all unable to handle alpha translucency at the same time as being lossy to keep the file sizes down. That's it really, we needed a new format and for some reason that one stuck when the likes of JPEG 2000 didn't.
That Adobe ignored it for so long (and you still need to jump through some hoops to make Photoshop handle animated webps) is just bizarre though. For the time being it is easier to switch over to GIMP.
webp is the online hddvd . And we know where hddvd is now.
Elaborate. But you don't have to
Because you're wrong about WebP
@niezzayt3809 webp will not be accepted better than jpeg.
I use webp all the time. Smaller then JPEG and higher quality. Also libwebp has a cleaner C API vs almost every JPEG library out there. It's like OPUS, it's new and it's great.
Webp is still not supported as an upload option for an image on many sites
Cough discord youtube cough
discord supported WebP as of January 2024. Be it as Chat images or Post.
are you living under a rock?
@@niezzayt3809 I meant for profile pictures*
And furaffinity, e621.
@niezzayt3809 January 2024? Jesus they took their sweet time
@@niezzayt3809 I was talking about uploading webp images for a profile picture
My biggest problem is how, when downloading a batch of files, only *some* of them are webp, while the rest or jpg or png. The other problem is that I use a simple viewing program that I've used for over 20 years now, ACDSee Classic. When I realized I would need an updated viewer for webp, I installed ACDSee Free, but found out that it did *NOT* support JPGlarge files.
I've checked out other viewers, but none of them were anywhere near the ease of ACDSee.
(The other problem I found is that Classic has a little description box, that was discontinued for newer versions of the software...so I'll need to keep Classic around in order to go through and copy any description I need to save.)
A few years ago i built an AWS lambda in python to recompress new images to our site. We'd get some absolutely large images 15MB each and I'd resample to standard sizes and then go to webp. We saved heaps of space, improved page load times and reduced bandwidth served via cloudfront. Lots of wins. I was amazed how good webp os and how well it was supported by browsers for a format I'd never used before.
the one I hate rn is AVIF
Most web-browsers should be able to open such files fine but yes, it's odd when you get apps or online websites where AV1 videos are supported but AVIF images you get no thumbnail and they don't open
Even though it's like literally the same format! 🙄
Uuuhh... sure, but AVIF is better and more open though. Still not widely supported, but a great format.
Avif is hecking awesome. I wish it would be supported more.
@@yoshinatsu yeah, tbh support is the issue for me.
@@dftfire yeah I sent one by accident and ppl were "WTF IS THIS VIRUS!?" lol
Irfanview is my default image viewer and it always worked perfectly with webp files
Now that takes me back
I replaced it with XnView a while back. Never looked back.
Irfanview, it really whips the.." oh wait that's the other one
Why do you pronounce GUI and GIF like that 😭
i only just recently found out that you can just open it in the default photo viewer on windows 10 and then just do ctrl+s and save it as a different file type
Used to hate webp but it's compatibility was expanded so much in the past couple years. It's completely integrated into macOS and iOS. On macOS you can right click and convert webp files to other formats under 'quick action' and not have to open image editing apps. I'm pretty sure Windows has full support for webp. Eventually digital cameras will start supporting webp. Wouldn't mind seeing a "RAW + WEBP" option on digital cameras.
not gonna lie there's a desparate need for a animated image format that's better than GIF. GIF is ancient as heck and image quality is just ass. It seriously needs to be replaced by something better.
Maybe apng (animated png) can save us (yes it exists)
Apng files end up being pretty big though.
It's up to applications to support these file formats, but no, it's clearly the format itself that sucks
Wrong.
The issue is that ONE company came up with the format and has tried to shove it down the throats of everyone else, then blames other companies for not supporting it. Kind of a dumb way to go about creating a new "standard".
@@mattelder1971 That's literally story of every single format out there
BMP was developed by Microsoft, and is supported by Apple and pretty much everything out there
TIFF is Adobes, yet is supported by Microsoft and Apple
JPEG was made group of IBM, AT&T, Canon and Mitsubish, still supported by Microsoft and Apple for some odd reason
GIF was developed by CompuServe and led to more open development of PNG
First it was fake transparent PNGs, now it's just straight out unsupported file format. What's next, fake unsupported image file formats?
Is there anything worse than thinking downloading a transparent png image and your software says that WebP isn't a supported image format.