HN

Need help?
<- Back
I guess I'm using WebP now?

I guess I'm using WebP now?

Brajeshwar

Comments (88)

  • Gualdrapo
    So as every time I read something decrying how webp is allegedly "annoying", the conclusion is that the problem was never about webp itself but the tooling and ecosystem to handle it
  • groundzeros2015
    Webp does not have hardware decode and does not support progressive.I speculate the asymmetric push is a case of it solving Google’s problem (bandwidth cost) but not the end user’s problems (battery and latency).
  • edent
    Google aren't pushing WebP. Google Docs / Slides still don't support it.I appreciate Google isn't a monolith, but that lack of consistency makes it really hard to shake the impression certain tribes within it are at war with each other.
  • Grimeton
    Avif.Especially for animated images. Comparing webp or avif sizes to gif is easily a factor of five to ten when animated.
  • jgord
    I was amazed at how much better compression webp offered over jpg and png.Using it in a web-browser 360 panorama viewer enabled pretty substantial latency and storage improvements.close to 4x iirc.ditto large "xray" style orthographic images of building scans generated from pointcloud laser scan data.avif was even better compression for some cases, but seems to take a long time to generate, and less widespread browser support. Will look at jpeg-XL .. but Im guessing it will be a while until it has widespread support
  • IvanK_net
    For the past two years, I have been exporting my images in WebP instead of JPG. If I share it online or send it by an email, I am pretty sure the other side will be able to see them.I honestly think that all phones and even professional cameras should replace JPG with WEBP, we will have like 30% smaller photos.The DNG format (for raw photos) allows JPEG XL compression (it used to allow only JPEG in the past). I wish some country made it mandatory for cameras to let user take photos in DNG (just like USB-C is mandatory in the EU).I am happy that HEIC from Apple did not take off (as it was proprietary, protected by patents).
  • scosman
    I love webp. I founded one of the mid 2010's "photo backup and rediscovery" startups. Webp let us offer free unlimited photo backup at the iPhone resolution of the time (iPhone 6: 8MP). We hosted billions of photos for free, and paid for it all with a sub 1% conversion rate to $5 a month for untouched jpegs. It was profitable. We had to have a few dozen auto-scaling image conversion servers for browsers that didn't support webp, but 95% of users used our apps which supported webp, so it was fine.I'd probably go avif/jpegxl today, but webp was ahead of it's time.
  • userbinator
    Just as with JPEG2000, I'm still not convinced the additional complexity is worth it. There seems to be a lot of immature technologies being pushed in the past few years, when IMHO the Web should've stabilised long ago on the basics. But I guess people need things to do to keep them employed... and Big Tech needs to maintain its monopolies.
  • Dwedit
    There are two different codecs both called "webp". There's the lossy VP8 codec, and the lossless codec that's completely different. Lossless WebP is so good that outside of image format support, there's no reason to use anything older (except for very specific kinds of repetitive images).
  • seanwilson
    https://squoosh.app/editor is a great app to compare how well an image compresses with newer formats like AVIF and WebP, compared to JPG/PNG.It feels more practical now to have a fast loading page with large images now without too much effort. It was far too much of a burden before to have to provide fallbacks to older formats, on top of different images for different screen sizes/densities.
  • k310
    One forum I use does not embed webp links. They show up as links, period, and it's a damn waste of my time to convert. Small is beautiful unless your forum is run by two people, not having the time to update code all the time.Many image links that work for search engines don't work for the site and I have to download and then upload to a host to get an embeddable image link.
  • arjie
    I use webp on my blog a lot. The software automatically converts it when I post and so on. Surprisingly small files and I've never had any trouble opening them on any platform. Big fan.
  • louky
    Annoyingly Google voice doesn't support it at all, either. I've installed a firefox extension[0] that saves any image as .JPG,.PNG, or .WEBP[0] https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/siat/
  • layer8
    The one annoying thing about WebP is that you can no longer see from the file extension whether some image is lossy or lossless.The other annoying thing is the name, because surprisingly we use images in non-web-related contexts as well. Admittedly, PNG technically has a very similar issue, but it’s less in your face.
  • tjoff
    Why? Just skip webp altogether, an annoying footnote that caused more issues than it solved.Go straight to jpeg xl and/or avif when the they are mature.