I know nothing about computers but this does not add up
-
Little tech? Like, a micro company that makes software? A "micro-soft", if you will.
No no, it needs to be more present, more ubiquitous, more "ubi-soft"
-
This post did not contain any content.wrote last edited by [email protected]
I loathe windows, but I did just double check because this sounds inept even for M$ -- Win photos will absolutely open .webp, but it's not the default program for whatever reason and it just defaults to edge /
your_default_web_browser_here. Which is just impressively on brand for microsoft. Even when they have a feature they hide it to, idk, make themselves look even worse? Why not!::: spoiler proof
:::(FWIW this is a clean install, I do not have any non-default codecs installed)
-
This post did not contain any content.
Huh? I am pretty sure I didn't have any problem opening WebP files when I was still using Windows 10 (switched to Debian GNU/Linux btw).
-
I just hate webp because it’s supported in a grand total of 2 programs so it’s just annoying to deal with
I like how you say that it's supported by grand total of 2 programs, yet I never had any problems opening it in any media viewing software. Even Windows Paint opens it as far as I am aware.
-
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.
I think it opens webp images, because it uses some built-in library (in your OS) to load and display images. WebP format was introduced in 2010, and Windows XP in 2001, so it couldn't support it out of the box.
-
I guess it's Windows users with the default image viewer. IrfanView on W10 handles webp fine for me.
IrfanView is GOAT. On par with VLC or Firefox IMO.
-
Is this a matter of time, or do most programs never plan to add support?
I do expect it to be a matter of time. Typically, you pull some image rendering library into your program, which pulls in a whole bunch of libraries that support the different image formats.
As such, it's the job of that intermediary library to support as many formats as possible. If you keep that intermediary library up-to-date, you may get support for new image formats without really doing anything.But well, it may take more time for this to happen, for various reasons. One reason is obviously that we already have other image formats that may not be amazing, but they work everywhere, so most people continue to use those.
Another aspect that may slow adoption down, is that .webp was spear-headed by Google alone. Normally, you get other industry leaders into the boat, to make sure you cover everyone's use-cases and have somewhat of a commitment for them to integrate it. I assume that Photoshop supports .webp by now, but it probably took relatively long for that to happen, for example. -
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.
I’m too Linux to understand?
The advantage of using shared libraries is that you only need the one to support webp system-wide and then all apps that need it have it.
-
Hear me out:
AI-powered webp supportMany more possibility for exploits
-
I do expect it to be a matter of time. Typically, you pull some image rendering library into your program, which pulls in a whole bunch of libraries that support the different image formats.
As such, it's the job of that intermediary library to support as many formats as possible. If you keep that intermediary library up-to-date, you may get support for new image formats without really doing anything.But well, it may take more time for this to happen, for various reasons. One reason is obviously that we already have other image formats that may not be amazing, but they work everywhere, so most people continue to use those.
Another aspect that may slow adoption down, is that .webp was spear-headed by Google alone. Normally, you get other industry leaders into the boat, to make sure you cover everyone's use-cases and have somewhat of a commitment for them to integrate it. I assume that Photoshop supports .webp by now, but it probably took relatively long for that to happen, for example.Superb explanation. Many thanks for the insight Ephera!
-
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
AV1 is only supported by new devices, most support VP9. For example, the iPad Air 2024 does not support AV1.
-
AV1 is only supported by new devices, most support VP9. For example, the iPad Air 2024 does not support AV1.
yes, but that is a bit apple specific, and on intel side, they support hwdec since 2021. and since these are just images, even software decoding works (although a bit slower)
-
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.
Oh, man.
I just stopped being hassled to fix a bug on somebody else's system (that mine interops with), by the same developers responsible for maintaining that other system, because the problem got bad enough to escalate until somebody responsible for both sides looked.
That said, I was just ignoring them. But hell...
-
okay. it is a lot simplified, but mostly correct. ideally image format for drawn out stuff and other flat animated stuff is svg (vector graphics - ie - infinitely scalable yet crisp), but png is usually used because it is defacto lossless standrad. lossless here roughly translates to - sensor produced a matrix of colors - lossless photo preserves all data. lossy discards some data. For irl stuff, usually lossless is overkill for end user, hence you see jpegs (defacto lossy standrad)
jxl can so both. others can do that as well. jpegs can be lossless, but that is usually not the standard we use. you can store lossy data in pngs, but the loss is not created by png. jxl behaves by default like lossless (like png), but due to newer algorithms, size when lossless is closer to jpeg. if you prepare loss jxl - it can be close to half size of jpegs.
there are other benifits to jxl (extreme future proofing (extremely high bit depth, and pixel size limit, large amount of channels), progressive decoding, etc.), but our reality has to suck because of google.
I locally use jxl to store family photos, but this means i can not send them, because they are using stuff which does not support jxl, so have to convert and share.
I think gif is also better than jpg for the low-complexity images and is lossy so the file size gets even smaller. Or so I've heard.
-
wrote last edited by [email protected]
Sounds like windows people sticking to bmp images back when it was all it would support.
-
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
jpeg xl has even less default support tho unless you use a mac
-
I loathe windows, but I did just double check because this sounds inept even for M$ -- Win photos will absolutely open .webp, but it's not the default program for whatever reason and it just defaults to edge /
your_default_web_browser_here. Which is just impressively on brand for microsoft. Even when they have a feature they hide it to, idk, make themselves look even worse? Why not!::: spoiler proof
:::(FWIW this is a clean install, I do not have any non-default codecs installed)
Yeah, it's sorted through WIC iirc. As long as you have the codec installed you should be able to open it.
-
This post did not contain any content.
I know a bunch about computers and that doesn't add up to me either!! I hate the webp format.
-
Time to screenshot the preview and stretch out the jpeg. Upload it when the time calls, only for the web server to re-encode it in webp. The cycle continues.
I do this regularly now.
-
This is MS we're talking about. Preview and Viewer are probably made by two different teams in different countries, sharing no code, and prohibited from communicating with each other, even if they know about the other's existence.
And famously they fired all QAs years ago so there's nobody to test before releasing.
The image viewer is probably just Edge in a trenchcoat by now.
