this post was submitted on 17 Aug 2023
68 points (84.0% liked)

Technology

58303 readers
10 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

WhatsApp is finally letting users share pictures in better quality. Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg announced the new capability on Instagram today (via The Verge), and support for HD pictures will roll out to all WhatsApp users over the next few weeks.

As WhatsApp is used in many countries with poor connectivity, the app compresses images and videos to use less bandwidth. However, support for sending HD videos on WhatsApp is also coming soon according to Meta.

WABetaInfo previously reported that the beta version of WhatsApp for iOS and Android added support for sharing HD photos back in June. At the time, beta testers needed to manually choose the HD option every time they wanted to send a picture to other users. This is likely still the case, again, to save storage space and send photos faster.

According to The Verge, WhatsApp users on slow connections still get the choice to receive photos in either standard or HD quality. Either way, all pictures sent via WhatsApp are encrypted by default.

Last month, WhatsApp also announced that it had started rolling out video messages to all users. Video messages are currently limited to 60 seconds, and they should also become available for all users over the coming weeks.

all 26 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 11 points 1 year ago (2 children)

You could always do that in Telegram...

[–] [email protected] -2 points 1 year ago (3 children)

But Telegram isn't private/secure by default. By default everything is stored on their servers in an way that's accessible to admins, whoever buys them or infiltrates their infra - YIKES

[–] [email protected] 19 points 1 year ago (1 children)

WhatsApp is owned by Facebook. Are you really arguing privacy here?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Privacy isn't the reason I use Telegram, so it's moot.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

And that's a valid point. Many people use Facebook for the features it provides knowing that they're giving away their data to a third party. As long as the consumer is aware of what they're doing and the pros/cons is all that matters.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Well the same can be said about email providers ...

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago

Yes, but nobody expects modern encryption on legacy services like email. Should email be end-to-end encrypted? Absolutely, but that's completely unrelated to private 1-1 and group messaging.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I've been able to do this for about 3-4 weeks now.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Yeh I noticed I have to manually select HD. It's still shit quality.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

It seems to me anecdotally.

It's compressed still but is original resolution rather than half Res AND compressed.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago

You can already send images as an attachment and it doesn't compress or change the file in anyway.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago (2 children)

"HD" pictures? So like 1megapixel (720p) or 2megapixels (1080p)? What could you do before the change 0.3MP (640x480)?

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago

The old size was around 720p but highly compressed.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

i already can do it, it shows a option for full resolution.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

I was thinking the same thing. I usually use the full res option. It's been in there for years.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago

I use signal. Sworry!

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

One of the frustrating things about Signal is its extreme compression. I hope WhatsApp laxing up a bit will be the final push to the Signal devs to allow me to send a 30 MiB photo if I want to. Just give me a damn opt-in option buried in a settings menu for Pete's sake.

Annoys me to no end that I'm forced to crunch image quality down. The reasons I heard in discussion were to save disk space and network bandwidth. I have no sympathy for either of these points. Have a modicum of digital hygiene and delete old files, and pressure your ridiculous governments to invest and regulate ISPs, then join the rest of the world in the 21st century.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

Yeah I agree with your point. Even with Signal's high quality image setting it is still very low quality, so much so I can visibly tell the difference, and I'm not too picky when it comes to photos. I recall you're able to send them as files but if Signal lets you do that then I don't see why it can't send the raw photo like that too.