• GreenKnight23@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    20
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    4 days ago

    fuck webp. in-fact fuck all the new corpo sponsored standards.

    there was nothing wrong with png, gif, or jpg.

    tinfoil hat time. all the new corpo sponsored web standards exist for one purpose, to control the development of the internet so that the corpo-overlords can continue pumping users for “value”.

    • dev_null@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      4 days ago

      WebP is super useful. I developed an offline hiking map app and it contained 900MB of PNG map tiles. Way too huge for a mobile app. I converted them to WebP and now they take 50MB while looking the same. It’s amazing.

    • mholiv@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      4 days ago

      You got to at least like avif. Both in lossless and lossy mode it’s better than the formats from the 90s. It’s community run, patent free, faster, higher quality, and well supported.

        • mholiv@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          9
          ·
          edit-2
          4 days ago

          I mean if that’s your standard you need to drop quite a bit more.

          PNG was submitted by Boutell.Com, Inc (now doing payday loans)

          GIF was submitted by Compuserve Inc.

          JPEG was (in its original form) was by C-Cube Microsystems, Inc

          Avif is an open source, royalty free, better format administrated by a non profit.

          Companies (including Netflix) should be encouraged to contribute to the community under such standards.

          Open source, royalty free, better formats, administrated by a non profit Is the goal.

    • SatyrSack@quokk.auOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      3 days ago

      there was nothing wrong with png, gif, or jpg.

      WebP is definitely not a perfect solution, but GIF is absolutely full of problems. The only thing that GIF has going for it is the fact that it is universally supported by just about everything everywhere. But the two big problems are the fact that it is limited to 256 colors and is incredibly inefficient at compression. Those two facts combined mean that any given image in GIF format has a drastically higher file size than that same image in WebP, AVIF, JPEG-XL, APNG, or any other modern animated image format, while likely still having a worse image quality.

      I am hoping to see AVIF more widely adopted/supported, because GIF is definitely bloated and ready to die.

      • GreenKnight23@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        3 days ago

        hmmmm

        gifs load as images while avifs load as videos, because that’s what they are. Imagine the resources used when loading a page with 2000 avifs and you have autoplay videos enabled on your browser.

        gifs on the other hand, load one frame at a time and just cycle through each frame after they have loaded.

        I think theoretically, avif is a better solution but the applicability of them is going to be difficult to apply unilaterally like gifs.