The giant jpeg square artefact on the side of Homer's head in the first frame undermines the message somewhat.
this post was submitted on 21 May 2025
959 points (98.0% liked)
memes
14864 readers
6390 users here now
Community rules
1. Be civil
No trolling, bigotry or other insulting / annoying behaviour
2. No politics
This is non-politics community. For political memes please go to [email protected]
3. No recent reposts
Check for reposts when posting a meme, you can only repost after 1 month
4. No bots
No bots without the express approval of the mods or the admins
5. No Spam/Ads
No advertisements or spam. This is an instance rule and the only way to live.
A collection of some classic Lemmy memes for your enjoyment
Sister communities
- [email protected] : Star Trek memes, chat and shitposts
- [email protected] : Lemmy Shitposts, anything and everything goes.
- [email protected] : Linux themed memes
- [email protected] : for those who love comic stories.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
I'm not sure that's a JPEG artifact. It looks more like a video compression artifact (since the image is probably taken from a video).
webp is absofuckinglutely inferior to JPEG-XL and that one is where you actually have that problem. I’m literally providing an avif-fallback on my website, because otherwise pretty much no browser would support anything.
(Speaking of it, avif is also superior to webp.)
This is either old or was never true.
Happened to me literally last week
This has been an ongoing problem.
I recently put in a lot of hours for a software system to be able to handle webp just as well as every other image format it already accepted. I put in a lot of work as well. Hadn't heard about it for a while, but saw the feature release statement for the new version I knew my changes were in. It wasn't on there. So I reached out to my contact and asked if there was an issue or did it get bumped to a later version or what? So she told me the marketing team that do the release statements decided not to include it. They stated for one, people already expect common formats to be handled. Saying you now handle a format looks bad, since people know you didn't handle it before and were behind the curve. The second (probably more important) reason was nobody knew what webp even was and it's only something technical people care about (they probably said nerds, but my contact translated). So no regular customer would be interested and it could only lead to confusion and questions.
I hope somebody is happy with the work I put in tho. Somebody is going to drag a webp into the system and have it be accepted. Someday.... I hope...
The only ones reading the changelog are nerds anyway
- Fuck those people for telling you this after you did the work
- Those reasons are hard-stop stupid. If they REALLY cared about the marketing they'd release it silently or add a "improvements to image format handling" line and leave it at that.
I will second the suggestion at something like "expanded support for more image formats". One of my responsibilities is rolling the development log into customer release notes and I agree with the "changes that highlight a previous shortcoming can look bad", and make accommodations for that all the time. I also try to make sure every developer that contributed can recognize their work in the release notes.
"Expanded image format support" seems like something that if a customer hasn't noticed, they would assume "oh they must have some customer with a weird proprietary format that they added but have to be vague about". If it were related to customer requests, I would email the specific customers highlighting their need for webp is addressed after pushing the release notes
Maybe I worded it incorrectly. The feature was released in that version. They just didn't mention it in the release statement they put out to there customers. I'm sure there's some changelog somewhere people can dig into where it says something like what you mentioned. Or it can just be under "Various small improvements" which they always add as a catch-all.
So I'm happy, I did the job and got paid. Everyone I worked with was happy. And the feature got released. It's was just a let down it didn't get mentioned at all, even though I put quite a lot of work into it.
I hope somebody is happy with the work I put in tho. Somebody is going to drag a webp into the system and have it be accepted.
And that was me! I mean, not with your software but with someone else's years ago. Still, in a weird anachronistic karma sort of way, thank you for caring.
load more comments
(1 replies)
As someone who sometimes needs a quick and dirty stock image for my work, webp is the bane of my existence. The work computers won't let me visit sites or install programs/extensions to convert the image, and my document processing programs have no fucking clue what to do with the format. There is an option in Microsoft edge to edit image, and it will dump the result as a .png which is the only workaround I've found.
Samir ?
Personal homepage is HTML 2.0 compliant - gold (and it keeps giving, too)
Great content from ages ago
loled at how the name of the Chinese guy is just "generic Chinese name" put into Google Translate
load more comments
(1 replies)
I run Firefox portable with the extension "Save webp as PNG or JPEG". It has a button to copy directly to clipboard in the format of your choice.
load more comments
(3 replies)
.jxl is the better image format anyway
.jxl is still early. Webp is out for 14 years now and if support is missing its completely on the ineptitude of the client and nothing else.
I feel like jxl is supported even less than webp though
webp is completely supported by browsers I think now.
Websites still get weird about it.
JXL is supported by Safari and ummmmm mobile Safari.
iPhone 16 supports shooting in JPEG-XL and I expect that will be huge for hardware/processing adoption.
webp is not fully supported by safari and webview on iOS; they cannot export images as image/webp using the toDataUrl or toBlob from a canvas element
Frak Safari.
load more comments
(2 replies)
I'm working on a project which generates images in multiples sizes, and also converts to WEBP and AVIF.
The difference in file size is significant. It might not matter to you, but it matters to a lot of people.
Here's an example (the filename is the width):
Also, using the <picture></picture> element, if the users' browsers don't support (or block) AVIF/WEBP, the original format is used. No harm in using them.
(I know this is a meme post, but some people are taking it seriously)
Literally just today solved a problem of delivering analytics plots over our internal chat system. The file size limit is 28Kb and I was just getting ready to say screw it, can't be done.
Lo and behold our chat system that doesn't support svg does support webp. Even visually complicated charts come in just below the size limit with webp.
Why 28Kb though?
Honestly no idea. It's funny though. The API allows us to either read it directly from our lakehouse with the 28Kb limit, or allows us to encode it in a json object. It actually recommends using the json method if we want to send larger files... but then complains it's too large if it's over 28Kb 🤷♂️
I think it was probably originally only intended to allow attaching icons.
Feels like a bug where someone forgot the 1 in 128kb. What chat app is this?? In Slack, custom emojis can be up to 128kb in filesize
It's apparently PowerAutomate Adaptive cards.
It's MS Teams with their PowerAutomate flows from Fabric. The limitation might not exist in the direct rest API, which I could have used through Python; but it's a hackathon, and my other team mates know PowerAutomate. Faster if we each coordinate using what we're good with.
I've mentioned this topic in regards to animated images, but don't see as big a reason to push for static formats due to the overall relatively limited benefits other than wider gamut and marginally smaller file size (percentage wise they are significant, but 2KB vs 200KB is paltry on even a terrible connection in the 2000s).
What I really wish is that we could get more browsers, sites, and apps to universally support more modern formats to replace the overly bloated terribly performing and never correctly pronounced animated formats like GIF with something else like AVIF, webm, webp (this was a roughly ~60MB GIF, and becomes a 1MB WEBP with better performance), or even something like APNG...
Besides wider gamut, and better performance, the sizes are actually significant on all but the fastest connections and save sites on both storage and bandwidth at significant scale compared to the mere KB of change that a static modern asset has.
This WEBP is only 800KB but only shows up on some server instances since not every Lemmy host supports embedding them :
Is that last webp animated? Asking because I know jerboa (Lemmy client) doesn't play animated images
Yea, it's animated for me on a web client. Looks quite good tbh.
load more comments
(4 replies)
load more comments
(19 replies)
Lemmy uses webp for profile pics.
Just change the file extension to *.png. Works every time.
Unironically it will work as @[email protected] and a bunch just like him has put in the work to Just Work^TM^
surprised_pikachu.webp.png
Wait till you find out what's inside when you change Office files from .***x to .zip
Since we're here and someone may find it useful, I use this: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/dont-accept-webp/
load more comments
(7 replies)
view more: next ›