I don’t know what a .webp file is but I don’t like it. They’re like a filthy prank version of the image/gif you’re looking for. They make you jump through all these hoops to find the original versions of the files that you can actually do anything with.

Edit: honestly I assumed it had something to do with Google protecting themselves from image piracy shit

  • Atemu@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    For music, we use some variant of mp4 or lossless

    AAC is only 5 years younger than JPEG. Lossless music formats are about as ancient as GIF.

    • WhoRoger@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      But requirements for audio hasn’t changed that much, and overall it’s a much older and thus mature technology, that there isn’t much left to figure out. Consumer CD format with 16bit 44.1kHz has been around for 40 years, and you don’t need much better quality than that. So there isn’t much left to figure out.

      But images and videos are different. 20 or 30 years ago you didn’t need to commonly send 20 MPix HDR photos and HD to 4k videos over the internet. Shoehorning formats that were made for 640x480 pictures and tiny silly clipart animations just doesn’t make sense, especially with all the development that’s been made in that time. Newer compression techniques can help, but you can only do so much.

      • elephantium@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Shoehorning formats that were made for 640x480 pictures

        Err…nothing in the file format spec restricts jpg to a particular size. I would actually argue that this undermines your point – bandwidth was incredibly limited in the 90s compared to what I see today.

        Simple example: a 640x480 image is (at least) 307,200 bytes = 0.3M, so it takes at least 5.4 seconds to transmit over a 56k modem. A 4k image, same color depth, is 16000000 bytes = 15M. On a gigabit connection (what I have), that takes about 0.02 seconds.

        • WhoRoger@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          I was taking more about quality than size in this particular comparison. In 1993 you were happy to squeeze through an image in any quality almost.

          It goes hand in hand tho.

          If you can compress a 50 MPix, 16-bit, high dynamic range image from a modern high-end DSLR to a reasonable size with a better algorithm and format, you’d also have an easier time squeezing a crappy 640x480 pic to an even smaller size. We just couldn’t do either so well 30 years ago.

          • elephantium@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            Heh, in 1993 I wasn’t online at all. '97 or '98 is more like it in my case.

            That’s a fair point, too, better image quality for a given size. I was more focused on raw bandwidth demands.