• PieMePlenty@lemmy.world
    3·
    28 minutes ago

    Time to screenshot the preview and stretch out the jpeg. Upload it when the time calls, only for the web server to re-encode it in webp. The cycle continues.

  • 🇰 🌀 🇱 🇦 🇳 🇦 🇰 🇮 @pawb.socialEnglish
    30·
    5 hours ago

    I kept a copy of the old Windows XP version of media viewer/pictute viewer, whatever the hell it’s generic name was becsuse at some point in, IIRC, Vista, they updated it to some piece of garbage that had an uglier UI, worked slower, had no options for slideshows, and didn’t even support shit like animated .gifs.

    Even that old ass program can open a .webp image.

  • flamingo_pinyata@sopuli.xyz
    134·
    8 hours ago

    This is MS we’re talking about. Preview and Viewer are probably made by two different teams in different countries, sharing no code, and prohibited from communicating with each other, even if they know about the other’s existence.

    And famously they fired all QAs years ago so there’s nobody to test before releasing.

    • BodilessGaze@sh.itjust.works
      32·
      7 hours ago

      I work in big tech and this is my life. I envy anyone who thinks you’re exaggerating, because that means they haven’t experienced the joy of spending weeks trying to track down the team responsible for a bug and then months hassling them to fix it.

      • WanderingThoughts@europe.pub
        12·
        3 hours ago

        And if they do talk to each other, the different departments need to go through the whole hierarchy for everything and each manager puts their spin on it, so you get answers back from questions that were not asked.

        • herrvogel@lemmy.world
          11·
          2 hours ago

          Here’s a real and true story about how separate Microsoft teams communicate and coordinate:

          Few weeks ago, some Microsoft team from the US deprecated some critical service used by other Microsoft products. They just shut it off without notifying anyone. Other teams from other Microsoft offices in the rest of the world found about this deprecation when their production builds started failing to log customers in to the applications that they need for their businesses. People were called in from their vacations, emergency meetings were held to play hot potato with responsibility. Clients were PISSED. I stopped following the drama before it was resolved.

    • sga@lemmings.worldEnglish
      7·
      6 hours ago

      I can almost guarantee that they would be using different things. usually you have simpler libraries to decode formats (almost 1 for each codec), and separate programs plug these libraries in to generate the output. previews do not have to be accurate and have to be fast, so a simpler program with just linear scaling or something, where as actual image would be complex which has to worry about accuracy.

      still not a excuse to not have support for a free 15 year old format

  • Sonotsugipaa@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
    611·
    8 hours ago

    Webp is the worst format ever.

    Never mind that:

    • it supports transparency;
    • it can be losslessly OR lossfully compressed;
    • it’s so efficient it can fit ẏ̷̛̀̏̎̇͜ǫ̷̼̰̳̹́̆̍̐͜͝ủ̷͉̱̻̤̬̯̈́ŗ̸̒ ̸̨̟͈̳͍̱̀̏̓m̵̺͎̋́u̴͇̥͍͐̇̀̇͊̌̚͝m̸̢̢͕̻̬͙̒͗̽͋͆̕͝ in less than 2GB;
    • it can be animated;
    • is more than capable of representing 1:1 any GIF image;

    it sucks because the one image viewer I’ve ever had installed by the ubiquitous (= monopolistic) operating system everyone has by default doesn’t support it.

    • sga@lemmings.worldEnglish
      141·
      6 hours ago

      avif is better than it in almost all ways, and jpex xl is even better than that (but not about gifs i think)

      webp is essentially a webm file (which is mkv with codec restrictions(vp8/9 and ogg vorbis or opus))

      avif is av1 encoded files in a webp like container (but not webm afaik)

      jpeg xl is a format made specifically for images

        • AdrianTheFrog@lemmy.worldEnglish
          3·
          2 hours ago

          IMO AVIF works really well at making convincing looking results at really high compression ratios, it’s worse at pretty much everything else.

          And occasionally the ‘convincing looking’ results aren’t actually very accurate to the original image…

          But those results really do look very convincing.

          And IMO one of the most compelling features of JPEG-XL is its’ great lossless compression, although it is generally good all-around. AVIF is pretty terrible at lossless compression, usually well-behind WebP and only a bit better than PNG.

          Anyways, for photos, if you want to compress them a ton then maybe AVIF is best, but if you want high quality JXL is probably best.

          I think https://cloudinary.com/blog/jpeg-xl-and-the-pareto-front is a good comparison

        • sga@lemmings.worldEnglish
          5·
          5 hours ago

          what would they be?

          do you mean in sense of lossy or lossless? if so, in theory both webp and avif could have lossless photos, but i do not think they are designed for that (think in terms of their backrounds, they are kinda like a single frame videos. and usually you only have lossy video).

          jpeg xl in theory aims to take job of both jpeg and png (it can handle lossy as well as lossless). In theory, we (as in all of computing and media people) decide to back on jpegxl, we could potentially just have 1 format, and accordingly 1 library which provides support. but that is just a dream i do not see happening. google essentially paralysed jpeg xl by removing it from chromium , and that is the largest userbase.

          almost all other big companies want to use jpeg xl. meta, adobe, intel and others. the main benefit to them is reduced bandwidth cost (for exactly same data, jpeg xl can be ~20% smaller than jpeg), and jpeg can be losslessly translated to jxl, and even for backwards compatibility, reverse can be done on client end. but without chrome, no web developer will adopt. if web people do not, the demand for format would be extremely small, no hardware manufacturer will include hardware support (your gpus have “special” stuff for almot all codecs and formats, but that is not the case for jxl for now), so jxl operations currently are slow, so end user might not even be motivated to use (other than space savings).

          https://jpegxl.info/

            • sga@lemmings.worldEnglish
              3·
              3 hours ago

              okay. it is a lot simplified, but mostly correct. ideally image format for drawn out stuff and other flat animated stuff is svg (vector graphics - ie - infinitely scalable yet crisp), but png is usually used because it is defacto lossless standrad. lossless here roughly translates to - sensor produced a matrix of colors - lossless photo preserves all data. lossy discards some data. For irl stuff, usually lossless is overkill for end user, hence you see jpegs (defacto lossy standrad)

              jxl can so both. others can do that as well. jpegs can be lossless, but that is usually not the standard we use. you can store lossy data in pngs, but the loss is not created by png. jxl behaves by default like lossless (like png), but due to newer algorithms, size when lossless is closer to jpeg. if you prepare loss jxl - it can be close to half size of jpegs.

              there are other benifits to jxl (extreme future proofing (extremely high bit depth, and pixel size limit, large amount of channels), progressive decoding, etc.), but our reality has to suck because of google.

              I locally use jxl to store family photos, but this means i can not send them, because they are using stuff which does not support jxl, so have to convert and share.

    • Oxysis/Oxy@lemmy.blahaj.zoneEnglish
      276·
      8 hours ago

      I just hate webp because it’s supported in a grand total of 2 programs so it’s just annoying to deal with

    • adarza@lemmy.caEnglish
      31·
      6 hours ago

      and with very few exceptions i’ve run across, it’s also (intentionally or not) configured to produce shit-tier quality output by pretty much everyone implementing it at any sort of scale.

  • grue@lemmy.world
    35·
    7 hours ago

    Is this a Windows problem I’m too Linux to understand?

    Seriously, everything on my computer – Firefox, Dolphin, Gwenview, GIMP, etc. – supports webp just fine.

    • Jesus@lemmy.world
      82·
      5 hours ago

      It’s an everywhere problem. A lot of sites and apps still don’t support it, but a most browsers do. So people download images from their browser, then they try to view / edit locally, or upload and share, and they hit a wall.

  • the_weez@midwest.social
    5·
    7 hours ago

    It’s a codec issue. You can get the codec if your OEM paid for it, if not you can buy it on the MS store. It sucks but plenty of other codecs have had the same issue in the past on windows, mkv wasn’t playable by windows unless you had a codec for it.