I at least understand now what webp is for. It's like png but it supports lossy compression, while keeping the alpha channel and not fucking up all the lines like jpeg would
-
of course that means we have to trust hosting platforms that use webp not to crank up the compression and ruin people's art
-
Google is pushing it really hard so that alone is a reason to dislike it. Let trans authors of published papers change names in your silly Google Scholar and then maybe I'll reconsider changing image formats
-
like 90% of my software supports webp, and y'know 100% would be nice, but until then every webp is going to be moderately irritating to work with, and I'll probably just screenshot it to get a png
meanwhile! JPEG XL is really cool! I have never seen any software that supports it but I wish I had. We've gotten way better at photorealistic image compression since 1992. I would love to see JXL get even the 90% support that webp has
-
yes this means people would come across .jxl images and be as annoyed by them as they are by .webp right now
-
end users can actually see why JPEG would need to be improved though
-
google is fighting against it so I like it
-
apparently you can make cool glitch art by hand-editing .jxl files? I want to see that and play with it
-
if google wants to make webp the next thing, they should get in line behind JPEG XL
-
why is Firefox not picking up Google's fumble here