Google probably realizes literally nobody likes WEBP and avoids using it
This is being done because PDF is adopting JPEG XL, so Chromium must support it since it doubles as a PDF reader.
have not hear anything bad about webp, whats up with that
At this point if you’re going to use WebP you may as well just use AVIF instead, better compression ratio and the support matrix isn’t that different between them.
Mainly a compatibility thing afaik. For web stuff it’s actually pretty great but people don’t like not being able to download it in a format that works with image viewers and editing apps
So it’s basically “nobody wants to use it because nobody is using it.”
I actually rather like it, and at this point many of the tools I use have caught up so I don’t mind it any more myself.
My impression is that for ordinary non-power users it was supported from the start (i.e. the commonplace image viewers and editors could open it - at least I personally had no issues), it just felt annoying at first because it seemed forced upon the user.
I don’t know why it works but if i rename a .webp extension into a .png or .jpg it just works.
It works because the .png and .jpg extensions are associated on your system with programs that, by coincidence, are also able to handle webp images and that check the binary content of the file to figure out what format they are when they’re handling them.
If there’s a program associated with .png on a system that doesn’t know how to handle webp, or that trusts the file extension when deciding how to decode the contents of the file, it will fail on these renamed files. This isn’t a reliable way to “fix” these sorts of things.
It is apparently good at making animated media however its format is incompatible with many software media viewers.
It’s the bane of my existence when trying to save an image, but I am also exploring its uses in making animated backgrounds for graphical chat interfaces.
Is xl better than webp?
Yes. It loads faster, it has integrated quality levels that increase while loading (so a web hoster doesn’t need to have 5 different copies of the same image at different qualities), it has better compression and it also supports more features. It can also be lossless. Most importantly, jpeg can be converted to jpeg xl losslessly, and it will have the benefits of jpeg xl.
And even can support RAW data. This will be such a huge benefit to still photographers. Multichannel data also allows scientists and astronomers to have access to a lot more data in an image file (plus alpha for transparency), even animation. Really is next level.
fyi you have toggled the setting that marks you as a bot account, as such your content will not show for some percent of people that have bots hidden
Oh what? How is that even done? I’m using thunder iOS client. Will try to find the setting there…
Ok found it! Thanks for telling :)
Hmm, you’re still marked as a bot on my end. Maybe it takes a while to update outside of your native instance.
Sentience reached. Evidence of singularity and people just waltzing by blind
Neither is as good as jpegXP
That’s one good news.
So we made lossy the norm, but - let me blow your mind - what if we make lossy BIGGER?
JpegXL offers lossless compression, too
You win this time, bigger thing!
