• carpelbridgesyndrome@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    As someone who has had to put together websites:

    • It is supported by every major browser
    • It is halving the amount of your mobile data that I am using sending you images (With lossy compression it does even better)
    • It is decreasing my network egress costs
    • It is increasing the number of connections I can serve in a given time period

    Nope I am not going to stop using this or AVIF (which does better)

  • shootwhatsmyname@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    You get the exact same quality at around ~25% smaller than other image formats. Unfortunate that it’s not supported by everything, but yeah it’s a better image format practically in that sense.

    On the web this saves money when storing at a large scale, and it can have a significant impact on page speed when loading websites on slower connections.

  • regbin_@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    WebP is awesome. So is JPEG-XL.

    JPEG and PNG are archaic and should die already.

    .jxl is also coming btw

  • LucidLethargy@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    People just really need to support it. It’s far better than jpg or png. It’s the go-to for web right now, that’s for sure.

    • balderdash@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      But why is it better? My experience is clicking on webp format opens in browser instead of my image viewer

      • Unlearned9545@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        14 days ago

        It has more efficient lossy compression then JPEG. It has more efficient lossless compression then PNG. More efficient compression then gif and supports animation like gif. It allows for more colors then any of those 3. You can have a single for extension for photos graphics, and animations and costs less storage and bandwidth saving money and making a better ui.

          • Microw@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Lots of image viewers and media programs/apps dont support it currently. Which is a hassle when you’ve downloaded a webp and cant view or edit it.

      • AlphaOmega@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Webp supports 24 - bit RGB w 8 - bit Alpha channel. It also has better lossless and lossly compression. And it handles transparency and animation better than other formats at a smaller size.

        It is smaller, better, and faster.

  • IronKrill@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    The problem is rather the opposite of the meme. The file format is fine, but there is so little effort into making it happen.

    If we were trying then I should be able to upload webp images everywhere. The most egregious is websites that will convert jpg and png uploads to webp but don’t allow webp upload.

  • wax@lemmy.wtf
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    I’ve personally used webp for when I need lossy compression with alpha channel. What good alternatives are there? Png is not lossy and jpeg does not support alpha. Is JXL better than WebP? AVIF? JPEG2000?

  • TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Webp

    Developed by google, for google products.

    Not guaranteed to work with google products (looking at you google voice.)