[X] My Assistant

Generally, you should use a modern image viewer that supports those newer formats.
But for those legacy viewer enjoyers, you can install [storage.googleapis.com] the WebP codec to view them on the Windows 7 photo viewer.

This could be helpful.

It has been for me.

[ezgif.com] Convert WebP to PNG / APNG

It does lots of other stuff too.

This link has been helpful, thanks!

OH GODDAMNIT! It's not just thumbnails, but gallery images are .webp now too? WTF? That is just plain shitty. How many measly kilobytes of data could trying to streamline webp possibly save in bandwidth? Abandoning the most tried and true, widely compatible file format for this wannabe new era garbage is not an upgrade by any stretch of the imagination. I expect this type of forced obsolescence from tech companies, not a hentai site.

Lower filesizes, transparency support, less artefacting, animation support without being limited to gif limited colours/alphas. Is it me, or do we have a different idea of what an upgrade is.

I wasn't particularly a fan of webp either a few years ago when there was less support, but recently literally everything I use opens it fine, so I've not really even noticed much when I do download webp last couple years.

At this point, anyone who can't open them, probably have bigger problems to worry about.

I think there's a good philosophical argument against WebP. It's a Google standard, and if there's something the tech world doesn't need in this Chromium infested life it's more Google control of standards. Hell, they used their big swinging Chromium dick to kill an open standard (JXL) before it was even out of the crib, just to force WebP down our throats since it's theirs.

But from a practical standpoint, WebP is here to stay. Support has matured, adoption is on the uptake, and it's not going away. Even fucking Pale Moon supports it. Using it with modern software is fairly painless.

C'est la vie, the good guys don't always win.

This post has been edited by Scumbini: Nov 5 2024, 17:16

Lower filesizes, transparency support, less artefacting, animation support without being limited to gif limited colours/alphas. Is it me, or do we have a different idea of what an upgrade is.

I wasn't particularly a fan of webp either a few years ago when there was less support, but recently literally everything I use opens it fine, so I've not really even noticed much when I do download webp last couple years.

At this point, anyone who can't open them, probably have bigger problems to worry about.

I don't have any issues viewing webps offline, it's not being able to view them online, in a browser, specifically as thumbnails that's the problem. If I can't view the thumbnails, I can't decide on if I want to download the gallery or not. I use an old version of Firefox for this site and a few others because it supports add-ons that are extremely useful for downloading, keeping track of and organizing said downloads in bulk, due to them having their own dedicated browser.

Meanwhile, viewing the galleries in Chrome, Edge and newer versions of Firefox has been a horrible experience. The site looks like ass in them and I don't want those downloads cluttering up my main browser's download list. As for Firefox, newer versions of it are frankly offensive in that after a certain version, not only do all your add-ons break, but it won't let you disable checking for updates anymore. And it tries to force you into updating by default. For example, I downloaded Firefox 68 ESR and the first time you launch it, it immediately updates to version 115 or whatnot because the box for automatically check for updates is enabled by default. I really hate this shit about tech companies. They're always like, "Make sure you're using the latest version of ___" as if that ever, ever solves anything. It's only ever caused more problems.

Also, just to throw in an analogy. This "upgrade" is akin to game companies making their games require Windows 11 when they know damn well it'll work fine in Windows 10. The best operating system most of the world is using.

This post has been edited by Marien : Nov 5 2024, 18:12

Outside of closing known security holes, it solves lack of support for new and useful tech, not just WebP but things like the grid and flexbox CSS additions. We won't support old browsers for more than five years, specifically because they don't support new stuff that we want to use.

The cutoff isn't the version of the browser or what year it was made, but what it supports, so your analogy is shit. Older browsers are literally not supported because they doesn't support WebP, not because of some arbitrary version requirement.

I don't really care if someone thinks Netscape Navigator 0.96 was the best browser ever made and that they won't be caught dead using a browser that doesn't fit on a single floppy disk because of some conspiracy involving Big Harddrive, but we won't be stuck forever on whatever was supported back then no matter what they say.

I use an old version of Firefox for this site and a few others because it supports add-ons that are extremely useful for downloading, keeping track of and organizing said downloads in bulk, due to them having their own dedicated browser.

Check out Pale Moon, it supports old XUL extensions and has WebP support, plus more security updates than an actual old version of Firefox.

Install some flavor of Linux (if you're a noob, go for Mint) instead of using a very EOL OS that also phones home, though not to the degree that Win 10+ does, and you can use an actual up-to-date browser without worrying about things "raping your hardware."

all uptodate browsers are forced to include proprietary google code just so they can read googlese webpages. these proprietary scripts contain spyware that tells google everything about your browsing, from mousepoiunter location and clicks, to screeengrabs, and everything you type, even in username and password boxes.

idk about you, but letting google know my bank login is not the highlight of my life.

there are many rotten things about newer browsers. no flash support. and the whole bricking we talked about which stops the browser being installed on win 7? that bricking is entirely artificial, without that brick it'd install fine. it's really just google being a dick in an attempt to monopolize and OWN the internet.

Phoning home: I can turn off those features in win 7 and they actually stay off and mean something. oh also, I can and do keep a full firewall rule of Microcock's IP address ranges, and it works in windows 7 (will not work in windows 10, the OS bypasses any microcock blocking rules or locks you out of the OS if you haven't updated in a while).

newer stuff just isn't worth the trouble it causes. it's obvious that they have some malintent with their update pushes, otherwise they wouldn't push so hard.

also what Google is doing is illegal. theres even legal precedent, back in the 90s and early 2000s Microsoft (Microcock) tried to monopolize the web browser market by convincing websites to write a header which causes the site to only load in Internet Explorer. they too were attempting to control which browsers have access to webpages.

They were sued in an anti-trust lawsuit and lost. they were convicted of trying to monopolize the internet which is a public utility. now it's google doing it.

Also most modern web browsers do rape your hardware, because you are able to read googled web code that causes sites to actually rape your video card and processor. some sites like youtube actually bitcoin mine off you(this doesn't work in old browsers). youtube is google btw. that really lowers the lifespan of a graphics card. and thats intentional because it forces you to buy a replacement card, or if not available forces you to get a new card, which lo and behold forces you to keep in line in the update march (and waste money and probably lose files doing it).

new browsers are actually LESS secure. (on purpose)

Outside of closing known security holes, it solves lack of support for new and useful tech, not just WebP but things like the grid and flexbox CSS additions. We won't support old browsers for more than five years, specifically because they don't support new stuff that we want to use.

The cutoff isn't the version of the browser or what year it was made, but what it supports, so your analogy is shit. Older browsers are literally not supported because they doesn't support WebP, not because of some arbitrary version requirement.

I don't really care if someone thinks Netscape Navigator 0.96 was the best browser ever made and that they won't be caught dead using a browser that doesn't fit on a single floppy disk because of some conspiracy involving Big Harddrive, but we won't be stuck forever on whatever was supported back then no matter what they say.

whats wrong with leaving it to the uploader to decide image format?

Also PNG can be lightweight, it supports transparency, and there are animated pngs, they were a thing. they don't work great but they exist.

to make a png lightweight you don't save any metadata(no Exif, no IPTC, no XMP) and use max compression (9), you don't save comment or creation time, and use interlacing.

keep in mind compression usually uses color and/ or pattern indexing to reduce the information to a set of structures and a grid they are then called to be loaded to. if webp is going smaller file size than that, theres only 1 way to do it: an online image, where the image contains a link to the place where the actual full image data is stored (probably on google's servers) and merely loads from there, thus every image is just a few Kb of hosting URL and a small header. but tbh that actuall disqualifies it as an "Image" that makes it a "Program/Software". if this is the case that webp goes lower than the lowest compression format; google is essentially making images that phone home. imagees that if they wanted to they could just delete the content of the image on their server and your image would be broken regardless if you saved it on your computer. "this image violated google's terms of service". shadowban style. - mind you I have yet to actually look into the webp format to see what it comprises, but again I understand compression, so if it's going smaller file size than a heavily compressed image.. something is wrong.

if webp is saving file size by hosting the content online on google's servers, at that point you're just hosting all your images on google, and thats dangerous for a hentai site because google really doesn't allow hentai in any of their myriad of file hosts ToS, they remove it if it's there. it'd only be a matter of time till all your images are broken.

I'm looking into the format, again the optimal resolution would be an addon for old browsers to read webp, if someone wants to help thats great.


OK, I looked into it, It is not an image with just a URL, it actually uses a NONTRUE color predictive model (they call it "true color" but it's not) to lessen the amount of colors in the color index stored in the image. webp will also replace content in an image if it's similar enough (even if it is not the same on purpose, because the artist needed it to be different) we are talking about slight variations, but still it's not a true representation of the original image. this would be fine for thumbnails but not for full images.

Nontrue colors: say you have a tan skinned character and the shading then has multiple shades of tan for shadow and lighting, but the majority of the image background is blue(sky) and the character has purple clothing (which has purple/blue shading) webp will index shaded elements which are similar in pixel progression by VALUE as in Hue Saturation and VALUE. it then attempt to find which colors are not used alot, and replaces them with a color of the same VALUE but different hue. so you may get purple hue shading mixed in with tan in example. "Visually" at a glance it creates the illusion of the pixels blending to the correct colors, but they are not.


Webp compression: Decompression: whats funny here is google admits their image format is not an "image". during decompression/viewing their webp program(in the image and the codec combined) CONVERTS the image to JPEG, PNG, GIF, PAM, PPM or PGM images as needed. this conversion is done live on the user's hardware causing image conversion to load up the GPU on every webp view. (it's bad for your graphics card and will kill it faster than normal images will)


again they admit it's not an image, I quote:

"dwebp
Name
dwebp -- Decompress a WebP file to an image file

Synopsis
dwebp [options] input_file.webp

Description
dwebp decompresses WebP files into PNG, PAM, PPM or PGM images. Note: Animated WebP files are not supported."


PPM and PGM? my first time hearing of them these are not common image file formats. they must be doing that on purpose.

This post has been edited by Joshex: Nov 5 2024, 19:54

They can still upload in jpg, png, and gif, and in galleries where they do, you can still get them by downloading the originals

there are many rotten things about newer browsers. no flash support.

new browsers are actually LESS secure. (on purpose)

I don't feel like I need to engage with the rest of your post; you are evidently smoking crack.

I'm not sure I understand.

Google has been very explicit as to how WebP functions. It's an open source file format. What does that have to do with Google having a monopoly on some products?

Of course, if I can't download the original archive in its original file format, it's a bit of a problem. But for general gallery viewing, I think WebP is fine.

And as Tenboro said, lots of features that were added to the CSS spec are from the past few years. Flexbox and grids make stylesheets far easier to manage. Many features that used to require LESS or other CSS preprocessors are now native, such as nesting.

Outside of closing known security holes, it solves lack of support for new and useful tech, not just WebP but things like the grid and flexbox CSS additions. We won't support old browsers for more than five years, specifically because they don't support new stuff that we want to use.

The cutoff isn't the version of the browser or what year it was made, but what it supports, so your analogy is shit. Older browsers are literally not supported because they doesn't support WebP, not because of some arbitrary version requirement.

I don't really care if someone thinks Netscape Navigator 0.96 was the best browser ever made and that they won't be caught dead using a browser that doesn't fit on a single floppy disk because of some conspiracy involving Big Harddrive, but we won't be stuck forever on whatever was supported back then no matter what they say.

They can still upload in jpg, png, and gif, and in galleries where they do, you can still get them by downloading the originals

But is it too much to ask just to be able to view them as thumbnails? We're talking about previews here. Blocking previews is gatekeeping of the highest order. I don't mind if it's a webp when I download it, but at least let me see what it is without having to go to another browser. And this is coming from someone who uses three different browsers as standard practice. I'll try Pale Moon later, hopefully it can replace Firefox 52 ESR and won't be another failed experiment like Opera GX was.

This post has been edited by Marien : Nov 5 2024, 19:13

No one but yourself is blocking anything.

I'll try Pale Moon later, hopefully it can replace Firefox 52 ESR and won't be another failed experiment like Opera GX was.

Pale Moon was actually forked from Firefox at around 52 ESR, so it's virtually the same but with additional support and security updates. You should be fine with it. I wouldn't recommend it as a daily driver but if you really need the XUL addons it does the job much better, and safer, than an actual outdated FF install.

It also still supports Win 7 so Joshex's hardware can remain "unraped" or whatever he's blithering on about. Protip, if you don't want sites to run scripts you don't authorize, use a modern browser and uMatrix.

Google has been very explicit as to how WebP functions. It's an open source file format. What does that have to do with Google having a monopoly on some products?

Yes, WebP is open source, but Google control the repo. If there's community support for a feature they don't want to implement, or if they want to implement something and the community doesn't want it, they still have final say about what gets committed to it. Sure, someone could fork it, but then people and software need to actually adopt the fork and try to overtake the reference implementation.

Take Chrome(ium) for example, people do not want Manifest v3, but google has the keys to the kingdom and are going forward with depreciating Manifest v2 in favor of 3. Forks can keep it alive, and some will no doubt try. But mainline Chromium (and Chrome) will still go ahead as planned.

This post has been edited by Scumbini: Nov 5 2024, 19:37

I don't feel like I need to engage with the rest of your post; you are evidently smoking crack.

nah, just I happen to know that google makes money from ads and from selling user information to companies and governments. that is their core profit method. they want to spy on everything. so they include spyware in their sourcecode which is difficult to remove without breaking the code. they constantly pump out new methods of doing everything and constantly update them to new versions to gatekeep and drive browser devs insane trying to keep up. many give up and just include google spyware scripts in their code, others get infiltrated by google agents either on their board or on their dev team.


it's been going on for years, even many older browsers have some form of google spyware built in. but those can be dealt with rather easily. but because google noticed that we can block them in older browsers, and that the kinda things they can collect about a user are limited in older browsers, they have invented new more complicated ways to ensure they can get background access to your browser and everything happening in it.

but again, they need to ensure every browser is taking part in their surveillance.

I'm not sure I understand.

Google has been very explicit as to how WebP functions. It's an open source file format. What does that have to do with Google having a monopoly on some products?

Of course, if I can't download the original archive in its original file format, it's a bit of a problem. But for general gallery viewing, I think WebP is fine.

And as Tenboro said, lots of features that were added to the CSS spec are from the past few years. Flexbox and grids make stylesheets far easier to manage. Many features that used to require LESS or other CSS preprocessors are now native, such as nesting.

Google pays agents to infiltrate other browser teams to ensure compliance.

it's like selling a video game system. you need to have games. for google the "games" are the webfeatures they control the code for and constantly rabidly update. if they can get sites to use them, they can control the browser market entirely everyone must use google code.

This post has been edited by Joshex: Nov 6 2024, 05:00

I was going to suggest that google made a javascript which is supposed to translate webp to viewable formats. but it does not work in older browsers it must be some neo google javascript which isn't actual javascript.

This post has been edited by Joshex: Nov 6 2024, 05:14

[stackoverflow.com] https://stackoverflow.com/questions/4033787...956341#76956341

But in my case problem that my phone browser dont support user scripts, its old and not updating anymore.

Or run backend which load image and convert on server side webp to png and you load that converted version, like a proxy, idk if it will work because of all that coarse policy or whatever its called, on second thought it could be not exist on old browser.

Another sick solution is to run teamviewer on pc and access it from phone, and use PCs browser... its funny that team viewer works on phone but damn site with images dont, what a time to be alive...

The Pale Moon browser has largely resolved my issues, so thanks @Scumbini for recommending it. I was able to port everything from Firefox to it but Greasemonkey wasn't working, so I had to give up on my favorite scripts, E-H Highlighter and Archive Window positioning.

This post has been edited by Marien : Nov 6 2024, 18:40