874
I know nothing about computers but this does not add up (reddthat.com)
submitted 1 year ago by to c/memes@lemmy.world
139 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[+] -7 points 1 year ago (7 children)

not allowing webp is the answer.

webp, as the name suggests, is a web image format. not a digital image format.

webp is a fucking cancer and deserves to be put in the same place betamax and 8-tracks were left to rot.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
    •
  • [–] 11 points 1 year ago

    There are many valid criticisms one can make of webp; perhaps discussing the pros and cons. Rather than using those you instead went after it's name not being linguistically accurate.

    A bold strategy cotton.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 14 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    I use webp a lot, it's smaller than PNG for lossless images like screenshots and smaller than JPG for lossy while working for both. All the image editors and image viewers I use support it, so it's not inconvenient in any way.

    Also Portable Network Graphics, as the name suggests, is a network image format, not a digital image format. Just having a laugh : )

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (1 child)

    why does the size of images matter when the compiled JS bloat is 60x what it should be?

    if you're properly using content caching load times shouldn't be a problem at all, thus negating challenges to image file sizes.

    and if you're using webp for HQ images you're better off using png or even jpg.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

    I think you are talking about website hosting, which has nothing to do with my offline images. I have nothing to do with websites.

    But if you are talking about using it for publishing, some time ago I published a mobile app that shows an offline map for some mountain trails. All the map tiles were originally PNG and took 900MB, but I got them to 50MB as WebP tiles. That's quite a reduction, nobody would download a 900MB app!

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Why is it bad? Like what should I use instead on my website for images and icons?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago

    webp is fine for web publishing.

    I have a problem with websites that use middleware that makes webp masquerade as jpg or png. so when you go to save it locally, it's a surprise webp.

    not only that, webp is a standard that google made and pushed into the web consortium. I explicitly hate anything Google forces on the Internet.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago*

    The lossless mode is great (but more limited than PNG), the lossy mode sucks though. Like it only supports a quarter of the colour resolution compared to formats like JPEG.

    Also being a video format, it's not actually tuned to store still images, it likes to blur/smear things.

    Edit: But if you're using it for the intended purpose, low resolution previews, thumbnails and stuff like branding, it's fine. I wouldn't use it where quality matters.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent