[X] My Assistant

The quality increase is largest for the 780/800 resamples, to the point where the WebP files are slightly larger than the old JPEG ones, so let's compare some actual files generated for this gallery which was upgraded from v1 to v2.

Page 14: JPEG vs WebP

Page 15: JPEG vs WebP

If you actually think the artifacted JPEG mess looks better than the WebP ones, you need new glasses.

why are they stretched in different ways? I think resample doesn't do this.

Because the horizontal resolution changed from 780x to 800x

Alternatively, you can use IrfanView to batch rename and/or convert image files to another format, quality, color, resolution, etc.

Thank you for this advice! I've seen this damn format many times, but not a good converter. And in the end I just had to download a plugins pack fot IrfanView and the problems are solved.

why are they stretched in different ways? I think resample doesn't do this.

What do you mean? Those WebPs have a resolution of 800x1132 and the JPEGs have a resolution of 780x1103. In both cases that's a ratio of ~0.707, which matches the original.

Thank you for this advice! I've seen this damn format many times, but not a good converter. And in the end I just had to download a plugins pack fot IrfanView and the problems are solved.

Meanwhile I'm SoL because I use my phone and my preferred gallery doesn't support webp, and I've yet to find one as good with folders/pinned stuff. tHat F-space or whatever app certainly didn't do the trick, poor sorting order and didn't load folders.

Really wish this webp stuff were optional. Original images won't cut it either considering the massive size increase for even a single image.

This post has been edited by Rune-: Nov 12 2024, 02:06

What do you mean? Those WebPs have a resolution of 800x1132 and the JPEGs have a resolution of 780x1103. In both cases that's a ratio of ~0.707, which matches the original.

I guess that's probably the reason (IMG:[invalid] style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)

the original's ratio is exactly 0.707 while the WebP's ratio is a bit less and JPEGs is a bit off lol.

the original's ratio is exactly 0.707 while the WebP's ratio is a bit less and JPEGs is a bit off lol.

By -0.324 pixels in one case and 0.179 pixels in the other. Even if you have magical supervision that can detect the ratio being stretched by less than a pixel (~0.1%), I'm pretty sure they haven't invented image formats and displays that can handle fractions of a pixel yet. (I guess SVG but it's not really applicable.)

Either way, WebP doesn't change anything when it comes to that, so you'd need to use original images if that were a real issue.

The annoying part here is that I'll have to run every damn resample archive through a transformation software every time I download something due to my system set up. Also, I'm not downloading the resample archives for quality, it's just to check and see if the content is worth downloading in its original format.

That's just my thoughts on the matter though.

Also, I'm not downloading the resample archives for quality, it's just to check and see if the content is worth downloading in its original format.

Not worth just looking through the gallery normally for that?

Every update makes the site worse, please stop doing things.

Probably shouldn't confuse "every" update with just the 1-2 you disagree with

Even in that one, I'm just seeing considerably more artefacts on the jpg, and jpg looks worse both zoomed in and not. Are you mixing up which one is jpg and which one is webp?

the one on the right is webp and the one on the left is jpg. but when i look a the orange outlines of the halo the one on the right looks worse to me.

Probably shouldn't confuse "every" update with just the 1-2 you disagree with

I mean, it is like 90% of updates across all websites that only serve to make things worse for the end user.

Every update makes the site worse, please stop doing things.

For the world of internet to make any sense, you have to understand that there's a certain phenotype of people who have confused computers to be a hobby instead of a tool, so in order to keep participating in this hobby and/or to justify their employment or time wasted on learning about it, they will invent "problems" for themselves to solve or hyperfixate on meaningless metrics to justify "updating".

Typically these "solutions" only cause problems for the end users, which are either ignored or in the best scenario met with a disinterested handwave pointing to some obscure codec pack on github or whatever that obviously every terminally online drone already knows about, and therefore expect everyone else to already have installed. Ignoring the fact that before the update to site worked seamlessly even for the less tech savvy or the less interested, no guide necessary. Only adding potential problems for people where there used to be none, theoretically to improve some aspect by 4%, but realistically just to keep them busy.

More like, people only notice the ones they don't like.

Spending 10 minutes reading through the update logs will show how much is being done, by a single guy, to keep this site going, improve performance, add more functions/options etc.

There are only really two considerably controversial changes, one of which was required to even keep the site going, and introduced a tonne of additional functionality with it anyway, like or searching, negative only searching, date searching, ability to do a search and bookmark/share a link and actually get consistent results, etc.

The other is a problem for most people either because "google", or because they don't want to update their 20 year retired browser and/or OS, which frankly shouldn't be anyone's problem but their own.

The other is a problem for most people either because "google", or because they don't want to update their 20 year retired browser and/or OS, which frankly shouldn't be anyone's problem but their own.

Oh no, not le hecking old software! Better introduce compability issues for no reason, just so those heretics who haven't yet accepted that every proper citizen should always update to the latest version even if it offers no benefit learn their lesson. Serves them right for not having internalized the official mantra of the updoooter that newer is always better. Could we somehow implement a requirement for new hardware as well for the next update?

>no reason
>literally improves image quality on a site that serves art

Can't always cater to the 1%, even if some of that 1% have legitimate reasons for not updating.

Just update your shit, and if you can't or won't, then deal with it.

>no reason
>literally improves image quality on a site that serves art

"Improves" as in retains the same quality at a lower file size, which is admittedly not a meaningless statistic, but I ask this: what is the average internet speed in 2024 compared to 1999? Or 2014? What about the average hard drive or mobile device storage? Is the ratio of bandwidth available to file size requirements really WORSE than it was 10 years ago? If the site survived ten years ago with slightly larger image formats that every computer, tablet, phone etc. in the universe manufactured after 1990 could open, was it really necessary to impelent some restrictive soydev format to save 10-20% of file transfer size in 2024?

but I ask this: what is the average internet speed in 2024 compared to 1999? Or 2014?

Keep in mind that the amount of data uploaded also skyrockets every year, both in overall quantity and size per picture.

There might be some reasons to be pissed about webp format (for example google influence), but it's undeniable that it's superior to jpg in every single way. Pressure creators of your outdated stuff instead - or just fix it yourself. Expecting site to keep using worse format both in terms of price and quality to cater to microscopic portion of user base is nothing but pure arrogance.

This has been extremely entertaining update to me. I would understand if people wanted other more independend formats or something, but the amount of people defending their WinXP setups is just insane.

> Instead of using a modern image codec which is supported by every current browser (and has been for five years) and has 30-50% better quality per byte (which was mostly spent increasing the quality rather than decreasing the filesize) you should keep using an ancient codec that effectively predates the internet indefinitely because I don't want to upgrade

No.

It all really boils down to; If it ain't broke, why break it?
Everything was working fine, there were no issues, no one was complaining. But of course, that's a big problem in this day and age. We can't have that.
So now you have scores of people voicing their displeasure for this whole webp bullshit for one reason or another. And that's just a tiny minority of those who actually bothered to navigate all the way to the forums to complain, the vast majority won't even bother with that.

Though I will say, the sheer amount is surprising.
I thought it was only gonna be me.

Keep in mind that the amount of data uploaded also skyrockets every year, both in overall quantity and size per picture.

But this does not affect the actual data being uploaded, only the thumbnails and resized pictures.
And the difference is marginal, if you zoom in and squint hard enough, you might notice an improvement, but that's only for the resized pictures anyway.
Not worth the hassle in my opinion.

This post has been edited by werty101: Nov 12 2024, 22:59