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

  • 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.