From someone using foundry, please continue to use webp and webm… Foundry easily supports it and the file sizes are much smaller making them take up much less space on my server. And upload faster, and load faster for me and my players, and let me upload larger maps for my players as they render easier.
My god, yes. The .webp file format is consistently half the size of .jpeg and improves load times considerably.
Also, just use paint.net like a normal person. Or GIMP. Practically any image editor worth the name will let you save in .webp format and every browser can handle it.
I don’t even understand the point of webp. Why do we need to make pngs and jpegs smaller? Who has internet that can’t handle those files most of the time? It’s not like people are posting 500 mb images.
Neither do I. I’ve heard so much from so many people about it being a ‘better’ extension in all these ways but I mean… it just comes off like audiophile-style conversations about how this specific record player with x speaker set allows for the warmth better than this other set that costs the same amount of money. That amount being your blood, various organs, and the life energies of everything in a 50 mile radius.
How is it better when no one fucking supports it?!
When your site serves each user 20+ images and you get millions of unique users a year, saving 25-35% on each image translates into a LOT of saved bandwidth
“No one supports it” because support doesn’t just happen overnight. These things happen slowly. Same way they did with jpg and png.
Sure, part of the “better” is the audiophile “better quality” thing. But the major point is that it’s objectively a better compression. Which means less data needs to be transfered, which means things go faster. Sure people claim they “don’t notice” an individual image loading, but you rarely load one image, and image loading is often the bulk of the transfer. If we can drop that by 30%, not only does your stuff load 30% faster, but EVERYONE does, which means whoever is serving you the content can serve MORE people more frequently. Realistically, it’s actually a greater than 30% improvement because it also gets other people “out of your way” since they aren’t hogging the “pipes” as long.
A physical internet connection doesn’t have many issues as at all with bulkier formats, but cell networks – especially legacy hardware that is yet to be upgraded – will have more issues sending as much data (i.e. more transmission errors to be corrected and thereby use up more energy, whereas the power cost of transmission error correction for cabled networks is negligible).
Even when I have one bar, as long as I have a connection, I won’t have a problem with a 50k png. A screenshot on my 27" monitor is less than that. And the legacy hardware was designed with pngs and jpegs in mind because they didn’t have webp at the time. So that really doesn’t make sense to me.
It’s less about individual small screenshots (PNGs for example are pretty large with real photographs, which can take minutes to load with a bad connection) and more about multiple images on one site. User retention is strongly affected by things like latency and loading speed. The best way to improve these metrics is to reduce network traffic. Images are usually the biggest part of a page load.
It’s not about the bandwidth and ability when you’re reducing file size. It’s the aggregate of doing so when the site has a large number of those files, multiplied by the number of times the files get pulled from a server.
It’s conserving size for the provider. Most commercial servers have metering.
Please extrapolate a bit. I used the numbers to make it easy for you. Let’s try again.
10 000 people posting 50 KB images. And we are right back where we started. Webp is objectively better than old JPEG.
Also, “a jpeg of(‘or’?) a png of a 27” monitor screenshot" makes no sense. Jpegs and pngs are not the same filesize for the same image, and the diagonal dimension of a monitor is irrelevant. Are we talking 1080p, 1440p, or 2160p?
Nope. JPEG XL is more modern and delivers lower file sizes without fucking up image quality as much. Downside is that, right now, JPEG XL is actually supported by even less things, because it is still so new.
But it is an industry standard rather than just Google trying to push its own thing, so I do expect it to overtake WebP in a few years.
This is how every new thing starts though. You don’t just get better standards overnight. Jpg and png didn’t happen overnight either. PNG had this problem for quite a while.
It’s not a problem with WebP. It’s a problem with tooling that aren’t moving forwards to objectively more effective formats.
HEIC now has a licensing cost to it, meaning devs have to pay to make their software able to open it. Microsoft recently removed HEIC support from their software because of it.
It would be nice if mobile browsers/apps would convert them. When I save a webp and want to share it… Whelp, can’t do that - doesn’t even show up in the list of images.
If I didn’t have an extension to convert to PNG then idk what I would do. I guess I’d just stop sharing memes forever because the corporates made meme sharing technology proprietary? That’s sad as hell.
I’m not sure if this will work for everyone, but when I want to share something from the web with my iphone, I just change the file name from “somememe.webp” to “somememe.png” and it works fine.
Thanks. I remember Google news showing an article about them already deprecating webp but now I don’t see it. I wonder what format the article was about.
Akamai supports it as a transparent speed optimization for clients who want it. My employers website is fairly image-heavy and we use Akamai’s Image Manager to optimize images for us. The first time an image is fetched by their CDN they analyze it to optimize it for size, compression, and image type, and all the rendered versions are cached on their CDN. When a client requests the image Akamai will look at the characteristics of the device and serve the best optimized version of the image.
Not sure, but thy might. They’re constantly looking for ways to reduce traffic by even a couple bytes. They claim their servers see something like 30% of all web traffic, so if they can squeeze even a few bytes more out of something then it can have a pretty big impact overall.
One other thing they recently rolled out is a similar form of transparent support for Brotli compression. Many websites, CDN’s, etc. will automatically compress fonts, JavaScript, etc. using gzip if the client browser supports it (and most do). Brotli is a newer compression algorithm that sometimes is better than gzip, but not always. Many browsers now support Brotli as an option along with gzip, so Akamai will transparently convert gzipped items to Brotli, and if it generates a smaller file then they’ll serve that version to browsers that support it.
Add comment