432
submitted 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year 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 214 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year 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 139 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year 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 24 points 1 year 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 13 points 1 year 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 39 points 1 year ago
[-] minorninth@lemmy.world 32 points 1 year 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 11 points 1 year 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 3 points 1 year 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 1 year ago

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

[-] Gerula@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

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

[-] minorninth@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year 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 1 year 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 1 year ago

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

[-] CheshireSnake@iusearchlinux.fyi 3 points 1 year ago

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

[-] reddig33@lemmy.world 36 points 1 year ago

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

[-] DocMcStuffin@lemmy.world 29 points 1 year 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 15 points 1 year 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 13 points 1 year ago

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

[-] optimal 8 points 1 year ago

We usually call it JXL for short.

[-] mvirts@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago

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

[-] Laticauda@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year 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.

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

[-] kabe@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year 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 1 year 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 1 year ago

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

[-] And009@reddthat.com 2 points 1 year ago

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

[-] DogMuffins@discuss.tchncs.de 4 points 1 year 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 1 year 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

[-] curiosityLynx@kglitch.social 2 points 1 year ago

So basically what APNG tried to be?

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

No Stupid Questions

35866 readers
1755 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