[X] My Assistant

So many hating on WebP! Better quality at same file size? That is a win!

I want to let the mod/admin team know they are keeping up with the times and taking advantage of what technology has to offer. I appreciate their dedication to this site!

Good job!

I wouldn't call it outright hate. WebP seems to be pushed into use where it isn't really useful. This has happened to many things over time, and they often end up that people hate it as a result.
although WebP is still great for previews or situations where you need to load a lot of images quickly.

People mentioning Android versions reminds me of the little number they pop up when starting a new Android Studio project, saying if you pick a minimum version X your app will support N% of devices. Let's see...

5.0 - 99.7%
6.0 - 98.8%
7.0 - 97.4%
8.0 - 95.4%
9.0 - 89.6%
10.0 - 81.2%
11.0 - 67.6%
12.0 - 48.6%

(Edit: Typed the wrong number)

...I wonder what poor old devices out there are in the ~2.3% of pre-5.0 area (which dates to 2014). In technology timeframes, it's already grown up, gotten married, had kids, retired, and is now bickering about last night's bingo game with the other folks in the nursing home.

Conversely, over half the devices out there are 12 or higher. Which... Actually no, I'd believe it, 12 is from 2021. (My phone is stuck permanently at 10 and keeps nagging me to update to 12, so mentally I always just think of 12 as "that new one".)

(I have no point to make based on that data. I just was curious.)

WebP
❌ It just works.

I mean, it does "just work". For remotely modern systems, at least. My laptop, desktop, and work systems are perfectly happy with it. As is my phone. I've never had to install or fudge around with anything to make it work.

Maybe 3-4 years ago, my older laptop did have WEBP issues, I think? I remember some software I used couldn't show them. Browser was fine, but some local stuff couldn't. So... I converted them. Adjusted my scripts to detect WEBP and fix them up. Bam, problem solved, no rocket science required, and honestly I forgot they even existed until the topic got brought up here.

Sometimes you have to solve your own problems. Maybe that means updating. Maybe that means finding a new image viewer which is still receiving updates. Maybe that means converting files in your own collection. And maybe, just maybe, it's insurmountable and you're just shit out of luck? Like it or not, WEBP has passed the point of no return - it's not going away. And even if this site doesn't force your hand, a year down the line some other site will.

But hey, pounding the table and demanding everyone accommodate you is easier, right?

This post has been edited by jadoeman: Nov 15 2024, 01:56

PNG
✅ It just works.

To be facetious I believe apng is now part of png spec, so no it actually just doesn't work to spec as a lot of things don't support animated pngs.

Just make the old converters have the same GP price of the original archive lol, that will force people to update/find other programs/app.

same, the jpg worked fine, i didnt mind the resampled quality tbh or having to rename the images using irfan but the change to webp is so sudden i thought the site was hacked or something

I wouldn't call it outright hate. WebP seems to be pushed into use where it isn't really useful. This has happened to many things over time, and they often end up that people hate it as a result.
although WebP is still great for previews or situations where you need to load a lot of images quickly.

yep i think its a good format but the sudden push really shocked me if anything (IMG:[invalid] style_emoticons/default/cry.gif) because jpg worked fine before and i dont have trouble viewing it, the site mods should've just give us the option to swap between webp and jpg in the settings for when you want to download resampled archives (IMG:[invalid] style_emoticons/default/laugh.gif)

I really hope Tenboro will consider to keep the "Download Resample Archive" on the original format.

Or at the very least, give us the option to choose between the new / old format to download the resampled archive.

I can guarantee you a lot people will have issues with the .webp format (many devices won't show the .webp image properly / contrast issue / etc)

>I really hope Tenboro will consider to keep the "Download Resample Archive" on the original format.
>Or at the very least, give us the option to choose between the new / old format to download the resampled archive.
Not happening, that defeats the whole point, why would you provide 2 different resampled formats?

>I can guarantee you a lot people will have issues with the .webp format (many devices won't show the .webp image properly / contrast issue / etc)
It's been live for like 2 weeks now and considering only a few people complained about it, i'd say that's not the case. It's mostly been people that have been using 20 year old software with alternatives available for most cases.

This post has been edited by -terry-: Nov 18 2024, 19:11

>I really hope Tenboro will consider to keep the "Download Resample Archive" on the original format.
>Or at the very least, give us the option to choose between the new / old format to download the resampled archive.
Not happening, that defeats the whole point, why would you provide 2 different resampled formats?

>I can guarantee you a lot people will have issues with the .webp format (many devices won't show the .webp image properly / contrast issue / etc)
It's been live for like 2 weeks now and considering only a few people complained about it, i'd say that's not the case. It's mostly been people that have been using 20 year old software with alternatives available for most cases.

1) Because the original archive is jpg / png, so obviously you want the resampled archive on jpg / png too.


2) I'm having contrast issue when opening .webp images on Windows 10 <even after using Windows' codec>.

[store.steampowered.com] https://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/Ste...elcome-to-Steam

^Based on the Steam survey above, you can see that nearly 50% of the users are using Windows 10, so obviously many people are gonna face the same issue with .webp format.

1) Because the original archive is jpg / png, so obviously you want the resampled archive on jpg / png too.

The original format is irrelevant to the resample process. It's being resized and/or converted regardless of what the input is, now it's just being output into a more efficient format.

2) I'm having contrast issue when opening .webp images on Windows 10 <even after using Windows' codec>.

Was it the Photos app or the legacy Windows 7 photo viewer? You should report to Microsoft so they can fix it if it's the former, but I don't think the latter is still supported.

Edit: Found [www.winhelponline.com] this.
It seems the Microsoft WebP Extension may cause images to be darker in the legacy photo viewer, the solution is to uninstall that and install Google's WebP Codec (instructions in that post).

This post has been edited by aklfhl: Nov 18 2024, 20:21

its barely been a year since webp was revealed to have serious exploits associated with it and some people are acting like everyone else is simply refusing to use it because because 'they heckin are scared of le epic changerinos and can't press le updoot button.' Some take this a step further and refuse to accept the idea that software, even fully updated ones, don't accept the format. Nearly every updooter arguement ends up like this. The updooter prefers to turn their brain off and you just accept that it works on their machine, therefore they are better/more correct. After all, it's way easier to just let things happen since thats what a life of learned helplessness teaches you to do after consuming nonstop blackpills and demoralization propaganda in every form of media.

Webp was released in 2010, and its been overwhelmingly ignored by nearly everyone for over a decade. It's not some new bright eyed or bushy tailed format made with good intentions, it was created as part of google's strategy to cuckhold the rest of the internet and create new webstandards that they could monopolize. When the internet wasnt consolidated, there was no reason to use it and so people didnt. Back then, bandwidth cost more so you'd think, saving space would be a big deal right? But only now in 2024 it's making headway.... because it's being forced. Because every app is cef and every website is the same, and they all bow to the google community guidelines and all that nonsense. What a coincidence. Except it's not.

Yeah, I said 'lol because google', as if that wasn't a legitimate argument. Have you been asleep the past 4 years? Or even the past 14? These corporations are not your friend, and they do not support anything this community does. Websites have to obscufate cartoon books involving ADULT women specifically because google decided that 18+teen porn was actually illegal pornography and banned everyone with adsense from hosting it on the clear web. This in turn led to people to start pretending all hentai is illegal content and distance themselves from it.

This kind of complacency is dangerous. How many websites have removed adult short or young looking women from their catalogs? It was like what, 4-6 months ago when all the furry sites deleted shit like yordles and other kinds of shortstack porn. Not lolis, but adult women. Who was behind that? The same political interests that run google. Why did they do that? Because eastern art has no place in the new-age dystopia because it relies on traditional standards of beauty. The anti-reproduction agenda pushed by antinatalist and eugenicists do not want you having sex with young beautiful men or women, and they don't want you to think young and beautiful people are attractive. They have been chipping away at these standards over the last decade to push this insane agenda, and every year they move the bar a little more. It's subtle and you probably didn't notice but they are coming for your anime pussy, the very least you can do is not save it in their image format.




t. schitzo ( i will not take my meds )

But only now in 2024 it's making headway.... because it's being forced. Because every app is cef and every website is the same, and they all bow to the google community guidelines and all that nonsense. What a coincidence. Except it's not.

Yeah, I said 'lol because google', as if that wasn't a legitimate argument. Have you been asleep the past 4 years? Or even the past 14? These corporations are not your friend, and they do not support anything this community does. Websites have to obscufate cartoon books involving ADULT women specifically because google decided that 18+teen porn was actually illegal pornography and banned everyone with adsense from hosting it on the clear web. This in turn led to people to start pretending all hentai is illegal content and distance themselves from it.

It's not even that deep. People gave Google overwhelming control of web standards by using Chrome and Chromium based browsers instead of literally anything else, now they're leveraging that power to taken more control of standards.

Actual free standards lost here, JXL was smothered to death in the crib, and now for better or worse everything went WebP instead. Adapt, or become the equivalent of Stallman trying to use the Internet without JS, which I highly doubt you're gonna do since you're here bitching about it and begging for a reversal.

just stop downloading 1280x resamples lol

Actual free standards lost here, JXL was smothered to death in the crib, and now for better or worse everything went WebP instead. Adapt, or become the equivalent of Stallman trying to use the Internet without JS, which I highly doubt you're gonna do since you're here bitching about it and begging for a reversal.

That's the crux of it, really. Nobody here, whether admin or user, is going to change the state of the world with regards to internet image formats. Or at least nobody will be changing it here; who knows, maybe some W3C committee members like their anime tits just like the rest of us. But even then, that won't happen here.

Whether this particular site uses JPG, WEBP, or any other format, is not going to guide, influence, or impact Google in any meaningful way.

...It's like the saying goes - courage to change what you can, serenity to accept those you cannot change, and wisdom to know the difference.

Because eastern art has no place in the new-age dystopia because it relies on traditional standards of beauty. The anti-reproduction agenda pushed by antinatalist and eugenicists do not want you having sex with young beautiful men or women, and they don't want you to think young and beautiful people are attractive.

I'm not sure what you're on, but whatever it is, it must be strong.

In all seriousness though, none of that is relevant. WEBP a file format, a standard that software (browsers included) use to store and transmit data. Standards live and die based on adoption... and for better or for worse, WEBP has been successfully adopted at this point by the internet at large. This is a fact, not an opinion. This makes it a viable format to use.

Whether Google (or whoever today's boogeyman is) is good or evil, or what their stance on various moral/ethical/political stances, is besides the point. It has no bearing on the format itself. The most evil organization in the world could put out a bulletin saying "the sky is blue" - you can agree with that statement without also agreeing with every single other evil thing they've done.

...Unless you're suggesting that the format has some hidden provision somewhere to try to push "the anti-reproduction agenda", through... some... means, I guess? Ah yes, page 25 of the WEBP spec, section 15.3.23, titled "Measures to Infect Viruses Into Asian Pornographic World-Wide-Web Hosts". How could we miss that?

It's not even that deep. People gave Google overwhelming control of web standards by using Chrome and Chromium based browsers instead of literally anything else, now they're leveraging that power to taken more control of standards.

Actual free standards lost here, JXL was smothered to death in the crib, and now for better or worse everything went WebP instead. Adapt, or become the equivalent of Stallman trying to use the Internet without JS, which I highly doubt you're gonna do since you're here bitching about it and begging for a reversal.

The whole "Google bad" thing is kinda off-topic, but remind you, JXL is also (in large part) developed by Google.
JXL is based of Google PIK and Cloudinary FUIF, and 2 of the 3 main authors of the JXL spec are from Google Research.
Jyrki Alakuijala, one of them, is literally the one who designed the WebP lossless format.

The whole "Google bad" thing is kinda off-topic, but remind you, JXL is also (in large part) developed by Google.
JXL is based of Google PIK and Cloudinary FUIF, and 2 of the 3 main authors of the JXL spec are from Google Research.
Jyrki Alakuijala, one of them, is literally the one who designed the WebP lossless format.

Yes, but to put it very simply, they only have total and unopposed control of one of the projects. The other is run by a committee they're not the only member of. And judging by which format they actually support now, they found that part disagreeable.

This post has been edited by Scumbini: Nov 19 2024, 06:33

Yes, but to put it very simply, they only have total and unopposed control of one of the projects. The other is run by a committee they're not the only member of. And judging by which format they actually support now, they found that part disagreeable.

No? WebP is already adopted, so I won't talk about that here.
The Chrome team dropped JXL support in favor of AVIF, which is run by a committee they're not the only member of. In fact, AVIF was originally invented by Netflix.

No? WebP is already adopted, so I won't talk about that here.
The Chrome team dropped JXL support in favor of AVIF, which is run by a committee they're not the only member of. In fact, AVIF was originally invented by Netflix.

I was talking WebP vs JXL.

Yes, AVIF is in a much better position than JXL ever was and is already widely supported. As for why they swung hard for it as opposed to JXL? I'll admit I have no idea. Haven't read up enough on it to formulate a schizo theory. :^)

FWIW I was considering jumping straight to AVIF since it seems to be another somewhat significant jump quality/filesize-wise over WebP, but the unsupported browser rate is about twice that of WebP (Firefox only added support a year ago) and there is no native Windows support that I could see. Apparently you can manually install the "AV1 Video Extensions" pack to enable it, but 99% of people aren't going to do that.

It needs toolchain support on the uploaders as well, but I suppose the next time the uploaders are upgraded, we could add support to upload AVIF files and then resample those files as AVIF. Though I doubt we'll bother changing the global resample format again.

FWIW I was considering jumping straight to AVIF since it seems to be another somewhat significant jump quality/filesize-wise over WebP, but the unsupported browser rate is about twice that of WebP (Firefox only added support a year ago) and there is no native Windows support that I could see. Apparently you can manually install the "AV1 Video Extensions" pack to enable it, but 99% of people aren't going to do that.

It needs toolchain support on the uploaders as well, but I suppose the next time the uploaders are upgraded, we could add support to upload AVIF files and then resample those files as AVIF. Though I doubt we'll bother changing the global resample format again.

I think Firefox started supporting static AVIF three years ago, but the animated support was only added last year. But still, AVIF is a bit too new.
And IIRC, its encoding speed is much slower compared to WebP. Converting existing galleries to WebP is about to take two years; I wonder how long it will take for AVIF.

And IIRC, its encoding speed is much slower compared to WebP. Converting existing galleries to WebP is about to take two years; I wonder how long it will take for AVIF.

The two years doesn't include resampling the images, that happens on-demand; it's just for re-analyzing the images, converting the database entries, and creating the new thumbnails.

The resampling backend has ~160 physical CPU cores available to it so encoding speed is not that much of a concern resource-wise, but obviously it would add a delay for the first time an image is viewed in a particular resolution. WebP is already slower than JPEG but not by more than a factor of two or so (and typically closer to 50%), but I haven't really done any testing on AVIF.