Ubuntu 22.10 To Ship With WebP Image Support Out-Of-The-Box

[cl333r]

Webp has little life left in it, JXL and AVIF are superior to it in every way pretty much every way, and services are already moving to replace webp with avif, or potentially jxl when browsers enable support

They're far superior to GIF, JPEG and PNG yet they're far more alive than AVIF and JXL. It doesn't work that way.

[Quackdoc]

WebP lossless supports RGBA (24 bit RGB + 8 bit alpha), not 8 bits per pixel (colormap) images.

In my opinion, the biggest advantage of WebP is lossy RGBA, think of it as JPEG with transparency support.
There will always be better and newer image file formats, but it is becoming increasingly impossible to force all mainstream browser and application developers into supporting them. Or to educate general public about the usage and advantage of such formats.
For an average designer, it is too much to understand the difference between the lossy and lossless formats, alpha channel, image depth, dpi vs pixels in relation to physical size. And don't add confusion with metadata tags.

lossless webp is limited to rgba (8-8-8-8 pix or 8bit same as yuv420p) vs something like png which supports pixel formats of 16-16-16-16? this is a sad limitation, why the limitation? no idea, but its bit my arse multiple times. its not exactly lossless converting 10bit to 8bit unknowingly. or maybe libwebp, the reference webp encoder, does not support 10bit, in which case the 10bit support is nothing more then paper promises. but IMO this is a garbage limitation for the benefits it gives

lossy webp is worthless, the compression ratios on it are worse then lossless. unless you go way down the quality stairs. loosing even to optimized jpeg images made with mozjpeg, unless you have the niche need of using alpha, which most people dont, good jpeg is a better alternative as it has a better compression:quality ratio.

They're far superior to GIF, JPEG and PNG yet they're far more alive than AVIF and JXL. It doesn't work that way.

define more alive. all major up to date browsers support avif now (with the exception of animated avif, which I would argue that firefox is insignificant enough to actually factor). Like I said, many services are starting to migrate away from webp, since jpeg is needed for backwards compatibility anyway.

[chithanh]

Yeah. It's like they looked at APNG and said "That one thing which is such an idiotic decision that APNG support can never get into libpng because libpng is the reference implementation and APNG is a direct violation of the PNG specification... let's do more of that".

It's actually worse than that. Even ignoring Mozilla's embrace&extend and attempt for hostile takeover of the PNG format (using same file extension, magic bytes, pushing for APNG patch inclusion in libpng etc.) - the way that Mozilla created APNG reeks of the mindset that turned HTML into tag soup. "If you add <blink> tag to HTML, it's still HTML, no?"

WebP promoters are guilty of none of these things.

[anarki2]

They sure took their precious time lol

[cl333r]

define more alive. all major up to date browsers support avif now (with the exception of animated avif, which I would argue that firefox is insignificant enough to actually factor). Like I said, many services are starting to migrate away from webp, since jpeg is needed for backwards compatibility anyway.

More alive means more often used but you can go completely the straw man way so that you don't have to deal with the fact that popularity is key and sometimes regardless of quality.

[Quackdoc]

More alive means more often used but you can go completely the straw man way so that you don't have to deal with the fact that popularity is key and sometimes regardless of quality.

its hardly a strawman to say that services are migrating to avif. people follow what instagram, facebook and twitter and the like shove down their throats. they dont care about the file extension at the end of the file in 99% of cases

[cl333r]

its hardly a strawman to say that services are migrating to avif. people follow what instagram, facebook and twitter and the like shove down their throats. they dont care about the file extension at the end of the file in 99% of cases

I don't follow these platforms whose main goal is harsh censorship, faking your identity and anxiety. I only use youtube because I have to (which is also a hard-core censorship platform), anyway recently I uploaded a video and wanted to upload a custom thumbnail and it only allowed me to pick PNG images (I had an WebP image). I think and hope relatively soon these leftist dumpster-bags will get replaced regardless of what image formats they allow. </done ranting>

[Quackdoc]

I don't follow these platforms whose main goal is harsh censorship, faking your identity and anxiety. I only use youtube because I have to (which is also a hard-core censorship platform), anyway recently I uploaded a video and wanted to upload a custom thumbnail and it only allowed me to pick PNG images (I had an WebP image). I think and hope relatively soon these leftist dumpster-bags will get replaced regardless of what image formats they allow. </done ranting>

hey, I dont like them either, I would be more then content with the platforms going up in flames, well I wouldnt be able to escape youtube, since i've yet to find a satisfactory platform from a usability standpoint that could replace youtube, content aside

[dpeterc]

lossy webp is worthless, the compression ratios on it are worse then lossless. unless you go way down the quality stairs. loosing even to optimized jpeg images made with mozjpeg, unless you have the niche need of using alpha, which most people dont, good jpeg is a better alternative as it has a better compression:quality ratio.

So in your opinion, web development is a niche, which most people do not need?
Every logo or icon on every web page needs alpha channel in order to blend in with different backgrounds. It is very hard to make a modern looking web site without using transparency.

As for the poor compression of webp with respect to jpeg, do you have any real world examples where it actually behaves worse?
In these cases it clearly behaves better.

https://developers.google.com/speed/webp/gallery2

https://developers.google.com/speed/webp/gallery1

This is an actual study done on a larger set of images

https://developers.google.com/speed/webp/docs/webp_study

[Quackdoc]

So in your opinion, web development is a niche, which most people do not need?
Every logo or icon on every web page needs alpha channel in order to blend in with different backgrounds. It is very hard to make a modern looking web site without using transparency.

As for the poor compression of webp with respect to jpeg, do you have any real world examples where it actually behaves worse?
In these cases it clearly behaves better.

https://developers.google.com/speed/webp/gallery2

https://developers.google.com/speed/webp/gallery1

This is an actual study done on a larger set of images
https://developers.google.com/speed/...ocs/webp_study

the study you posted compared libjpeg, not mozjpeg.

there are many ways to get pictures to blend well, alpha images are a single way, alpha webps are a bad way