I know nothing about computers but this does not add up
-
It's a codec issue. You can get the codec if your OEM paid for it, if not you can buy it on the MS store. It sucks but plenty of other codecs have had the same issue in the past on windows, mkv wasn't playable by windows unless you had a codec for it.
win10-11. major oem prebuilt and cto should have it installed, otherwise it's here:
https://apps.microsoft.com/detail/9pg2dk419drg
should be 'free' afaik.for win<10, get WebpCodecSetup.exe from the webm/webp project download archives:
https://storage.googleapis.com/downloads.webmproject.org/releases/webp/index.html -
Is this a Windows problem I'm too Linux to understand?
Seriously, everything on my computer -- Firefox, Dolphin, Gwenview, GIMP, etc. -- supports webp just fine.
wrote last edited by [email protected]I guess it's Windows users with the default image viewer. IrfanView on W10 handles webp fine for me.
-
I work in big tech and this is my life. I envy anyone who thinks you're exaggerating, because that means they haven't experienced the joy of spending weeks trying to track down the team responsible for a bug and then months hassling them to fix it.
Wait does this mean I work in little tech?
-
avif is better than it in almost all ways, and jpex xl is even better than that (but not about gifs i think)
webp is essentially a webm file (which is mkv with codec restrictions(vp8/9 and ogg vorbis or opus))
avif is av1 encoded files in a webp like container (but not webm afaik)
jpeg xl is a format made specifically for images
Do the traditional JPG vs PNG usage "rules" apply to AVIF and JPEG XL?
-
taking a screenshot can solve some of this problem
It's not 2015, we don't need any more of those deep fried memes.
-
It's a codec issue. You can get the codec if your OEM paid for it, if not you can buy it on the MS store. It sucks but plenty of other codecs have had the same issue in the past on windows, mkv wasn't playable by windows unless you had a codec for it.
And as per usual, VLC seems to somehow have all the codecs already.
-
Do the traditional JPG vs PNG usage "rules" apply to AVIF and JPEG XL?
wrote last edited by [email protected]what would they be?
do you mean in sense of lossy or lossless? if so, in theory both webp and avif could have lossless photos, but i do not think they are designed for that (think in terms of their backrounds, they are kinda like a single frame videos. and usually you only have lossy video).
jpeg xl in theory aims to take job of both jpeg and png (it can handle lossy as well as lossless). In theory, we (as in all of computing and media people) decide to back on jpegxl, we could potentially just have 1 format, and accordingly 1 library which provides support. but that is just a dream i do not see happening. google essentially paralysed jpeg xl by removing it from chromium , and that is the largest userbase.
almost all other big companies want to use jpeg xl. meta, adobe, intel and others. the main benefit to them is reduced bandwidth cost (for exactly same data, jpeg xl can be ~20% smaller than jpeg), and jpeg can be losslessly translated to jxl, and even for backwards compatibility, reverse can be done on client end. but without chrome, no web developer will adopt. if web people do not, the demand for format would be extremely small, no hardware manufacturer will include hardware support (your gpus have "special" stuff for almot all codecs and formats, but that is not the case for jxl for now), so jxl operations currently are slow, so end user might not even be motivated to use (other than space savings).
-
Is this a Windows problem I'm too Linux to understand?
Seriously, everything on my computer -- Firefox, Dolphin, Gwenview, GIMP, etc. -- supports webp just fine.
It’s an everywhere problem. A lot of sites and apps still don’t support it, but a most browsers do. So people download images from their browser, then they try to view / edit locally, or upload and share, and they hit a wall.
-
Wait does this mean I work in little tech?
Little tech? Like, a micro company that makes software? A "micro-soft", if you will.
-
Look, I was a big fan of HEIF but these days I just want anything better than PNG and fucking JPEG, GIF.
Apple: “Might I interest you in HEIC?”
-
I kept a copy of the old Windows XP version of media viewer/pictute viewer, whatever the hell its generic name was becsuse at some point in, IIRC, Vista, they updated it to some piece of garbage that had an uglier UI, worked slower, had no options for slideshows, and didn't even support shit like animated .gifs.
Even that old ass program can open a .webp image.
What the hell, seriously?
-
This post did not contain any content.
I remember when you could’ve made this meme about PNGs.
-
I guess it's Windows users with the default image viewer. IrfanView on W10 handles webp fine for me.
So does XnView, both Windows and Linux.
-
taking a screenshot can solve some of this problem
I just rename it to a ".JPG" file extension and that seems to work ¯_(ツ)_/¯
-
It is though. So many websites have converted their embedded feeds ti show a webp version regardless of what you upload.
-
I kept a copy of the old Windows XP version of media viewer/pictute viewer, whatever the hell its generic name was becsuse at some point in, IIRC, Vista, they updated it to some piece of garbage that had an uglier UI, worked slower, had no options for slideshows, and didn't even support shit like animated .gifs.
Even that old ass program can open a .webp image.
Yo that was an absolute joke. Were they serious with that?
Windows handled gifs fine for years then suddenly only the first frame. Seriously?!
-
what would they be?
do you mean in sense of lossy or lossless? if so, in theory both webp and avif could have lossless photos, but i do not think they are designed for that (think in terms of their backrounds, they are kinda like a single frame videos. and usually you only have lossy video).
jpeg xl in theory aims to take job of both jpeg and png (it can handle lossy as well as lossless). In theory, we (as in all of computing and media people) decide to back on jpegxl, we could potentially just have 1 format, and accordingly 1 library which provides support. but that is just a dream i do not see happening. google essentially paralysed jpeg xl by removing it from chromium , and that is the largest userbase.
almost all other big companies want to use jpeg xl. meta, adobe, intel and others. the main benefit to them is reduced bandwidth cost (for exactly same data, jpeg xl can be ~20% smaller than jpeg), and jpeg can be losslessly translated to jxl, and even for backwards compatibility, reverse can be done on client end. but without chrome, no web developer will adopt. if web people do not, the demand for format would be extremely small, no hardware manufacturer will include hardware support (your gpus have "special" stuff for almot all codecs and formats, but that is not the case for jxl for now), so jxl operations currently are slow, so end user might not even be motivated to use (other than space savings).
what would they be?
This is more or less everything I know about how image formats work.
-
I remember when you could’ve made this meme about PNGs.
And in a SANE world, somebody who learned a lesson would be using their knowledge so we don't keep repeating the same crap over and over again.
-
I remember when you could’ve made this meme about PNGs.
Back when Windows 3.1 only supported BMP and maybe JPG
-
It already happened years ago. It's supported and widely used. Why do people keep posting this misinformational meme?
