467
submitted 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) by sparky678348@lemm.ee to c/nostupidquestions@lemmy.world

I don't know what a .webp file is but I don't like it. They're like a filthy prank version of the image/gif you're looking for. They make you jump through all these hoops to find the original versions of the files that you can actually do anything with.

Edit: honestly I assumed it had something to do with Google protecting themselves from image piracy shit

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] kabe@lemmy.world 237 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

The format actually has a lot of benefits - it supports transparency, animation, and compresses very efficiently. So it could theoretically replace GIF, JPG, and PNG in one fell swoop.

The downsides are that many apps don't currently support it and that it's owned by Google.

Personally I use webp for images that are not intended to share (e.g. banners and images on my blog), but stick to JPG/PNG for sending to other people.

[-] Dark_Arc@lemmy.world 152 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

and that it’s owned by Google.

I mean yes, but it's ~~patent~~ irrevocably royalty free (so long as you don't sue people claiming WebM/P as your own/partially your own work), so it's effectively owned by the public.

Google hereby grants to You a perpetual, worldwide, non-exclusive, no-charge, royalty-free, irrevocable (except as stated in this section) patent license to make, have made, use, offer to sell, sell, import, and otherwise transfer implementations of the WebM Specifications, where such license applies only to those patent claims, both currently owned by Google and acquired in the future, licensable by Google that are necessarily infringed by implementation of the WebM Specifications. If You or your agent or exclusive licensee institute or order or agree to the institution of patent litigation against any entity (including a cross-claim or counterclaim in a lawsuit) alleging that any implementation of the WebM Specifications constitutes direct or contributory patent infringement, or inducement of patent infringement, then any rights granted to You under the License for the WebM Specifications shall terminate as of the date such litigation is filed. "WebM Specifications" means the specifications to the WebM codecs as embodied in the source code to the WebM codecs or any written description of such specifications, in either case as distributed by Google.

Source: https://www.webmproject.org/license/bitstream/

(But Dark, that's WebM not WebP! -- they share the same license: https://groups.google.com/a/webmproject.org/g/webp-discuss/c/W4_j7Tlofv8)

[-] CheshireSnake@iusearchlinux.fyi 30 points 11 months ago

Thank you for this. I was kind of on the fence because of its ties to google but this helps a ton.

[-] Gerula@lemmy.world 14 points 11 months ago

You could still be on the fence. It's Google so for sure it has the possibility of tracking or some other user exploiting bullshit feature but we haven't figure it out yet.

[-] great_site_not@lemmy.world 49 points 11 months ago
[-] minorninth@lemmy.world 41 points 11 months ago

It's also just an open file format. Anyone could implement it, and in fact I found dozens of completely independent implementations of webp decoders on GitHub in various languages.

There really is no secret ulterior motive in this case.

[-] _pete_@lemmy.world 13 points 11 months ago

There really is no secret ulterior motive in this case.

Sort of. Smaller images mean it’s less work for Google to crawl and index them, if every image is 40% smaller then that’s potentially saving them millions a year in storage and bandwidth costs.

So, yea, it’s better for the web but it also massively benefits them.

[-] pineapplelover@lemm.ee 5 points 11 months ago

Well, they crawl and index anyways. I see no harm done with .webp. One of my friends said with .webp you can't save an image because it stops you from doing that somehow? I'm unsure, maybe true maybe not.

[-] lapingvino@lemmy.world 3 points 11 months ago

well, see confusion by OP. otherwise really not true.

[-] Gerula@lemmy.world 1 points 11 months ago

Open source just like Chromium or Android, right? They're open source also, right? 😈

[-] minorninth@lemmy.world 3 points 11 months ago

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make.

Chromium and Android really are open-source. There are hundreds of products like Electron and Fire OS built on top of them without any involvement or consent from Google.

Just because Google Chrome and Pixel phones have some proprietary code doesn't mean that Android and Chromium aren't open.

[-] Gerula@lemmy.world 1 points 11 months ago

Well your right I wasn't clear in my answer. They are open source but for the point of this discussion with open source software backed by an corporation the open source it's just a mean of spreading "soft power" maybe gather inovation from the market and for sure to offer a way for FOSS creators to use their energies to build in the "correct" direction. The purpose it's building a monopoly on certain aspects of the market.

Chromium is open source and a lot of small projects have sprouted from it but with the same undelying technology. Except for Firefox, Edge and Safary, everyone stems from the same roots controlled by google trough money and market share. So in this case Chrome dominates the market and decides the course of the industry. See mv3.

Android is open source and some projects are build on top of it but the big market share so the direction of the technology is controlled by Google.

Let them decide a stadard for pictures which has undeniable advantages and I bet you that tomorow they will decide how you share and visualise images and videos.

It's not about being open source it's about that project being a tool used by a company to spread their interests (which usually end up being predatory towards the common user).

[-] Gerula@lemmy.world 1 points 11 months ago

Open source just like Chromium or Android, right? They're open source also, right?

[-] CheshireSnake@iusearchlinux.fyi 3 points 11 months ago

Dammit. Why do you have to make a lot of sense. 😂

[-] reddig33@lemmy.world 38 points 11 months ago

And here comes jpegXL claiming the same things. Fun times.

[-] DocMcStuffin@lemmy.world 32 points 11 months ago

Okay, but jpeg xl is looking pretty good. Especially the ability to losslessly convert jpg to jxl.

Recent conversation on lemmy.world and an article about it.

[-] nulldev@lemmy.vepta.org 20 points 11 months ago

JPEG XL came after WebP. It's more of a successor and less of a competitor.

That said, in the world of standards, a successor is still a competitor.

[-] mvirts@lemmy.world 15 points 11 months ago

Jpegxl will die because it has a bad name, that's it

[-] optimal@lemmy.blahaj.zone 8 points 11 months ago

We usually call it JXL for short.

[-] mvirts@lemmy.world 4 points 11 months ago

I'll take it, hopefully jxl becomes the primary way it's referred to 😁

[-] Laticauda@lemmy.world 6 points 11 months ago

Yeah I wouldn't have an issue with them if they weren't so incompatible with most of the programs and sites I like to use. It makes them super inconvenient to work with. I know some apps are catching up and supporting them, but it feels like the adaptation is slow and patchy which makes it difficult to know which programs will support webp at some point and when.

[-] poorlydrawnarsenal@sh.itjust.works 5 points 11 months ago

Potientially dumb question here, but how does Google own a file format? They own the patent?

[-] kabe@lemmy.world 5 points 11 months ago

I think so, but I'm no expert on the details of legal ownership.

@Dark_Arc@lemmy.world added a good comment here that explains the royalty free licensing.

[-] lapingvino@lemmy.world 1 points 11 months ago

look up mp3 -- that didn't become public domain until pretty recently (I think 2017?)

not an uncommon thing really

[-] Beliriel@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago

Wait LAME encoders are now obsolete? Tf? How did I miss this?

[-] curiosityLynx@kglitch.social 3 points 11 months ago

So basically what APNG tried to be?

[-] Aux@lemmy.world 9 points 11 months ago
[-] curiosityLynx@kglitch.social 4 points 11 months ago

True. Why did it remain relatively unknown while webp seems to have taken off?

[-] Zeus@lemm.ee 12 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

libpng refused to accept it

mozilla made it because it suited their needs; and libpng (the organisation behind png, and who make the standard png decoder[^1]) refused to add compatibility, insisting on mng instead. mng was bad, so nobody used it; and apng was great, but require mozillas version of the decoder so systems couldn't use both the official version and the apng supporting version together

[^1]: and have a fantastic website

[-] curiosityLynx@kglitch.social 12 points 11 months ago

Ah, so it was people being prideful idiots because it didn't come from their own fiefdom.

[-] Zeus@lemm.ee 2 points 11 months ago

partly, i don't think it was just that. mng did have considerable benefits over apng at the time; but it was a solution looking for a problem. i think they wanted it to succeed because they'd poured time into it, but nobody wanted to support it (mozilla, the only browser to support it to my knowledge, dropped support eventually because the mng decoder was bigger than every other image decoder in firefox put together)

[-] Aux@lemmy.world 1 points 11 months ago

To add to the reply you got, WebP is lossy. Meaning that WebP files are smaller. APNG only added animation and nothing else.

[-] And009@reddthat.com 2 points 11 months ago

That's a great idea. But can't webp simply be converted into a png or mp4 file?

[-] DogMuffins@discuss.tchncs.de 5 points 11 months ago

mp4 isn't generally for images.

Yes you can convert, it's just that many existing tools may not presently support webp. If you just want a quick & dirty meme you can always screen cap.

[-] Trainguyrom@reddthat.com 3 points 11 months ago

The fun thing is heif is actually effectively single frame of h.265 video because the amount of work that's gone into making h.265 space efficient also happens to work really well for efficienct compression of individual frames of video aka images

this post was submitted on 26 Jul 2023
467 points (100.0% liked)

No Stupid Questions

34292 readers
2257 users here now

No such thing. Ask away!

!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.

The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:

Rules (interactive)


Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.

All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.



Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.

Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.



Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.

Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.



Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.

That's it.



Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.

Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.



Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.

Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.

On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.

If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.



Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.

If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.

Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.



Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.



Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.

Let everyone have their own content.



Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here.



Credits

Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!

The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS