• saltesc@lemmy.world
        0·
        18 days ago

        Wait till you find out what’s inside when you change Office files from .***x to .zip

    • randomname@sh.itjust.works
      0·
      17 days ago

      Why does this even work though? WEBP and PNG are very different file formats yet for some reason this has always worked for me as well. Is windows automatically converting the files? I haven’t checked if changing the file extension changes the file size.

      • odelik@lemmy.today
        1·
        17 days ago

        WebP is an extended container around the RIFF file format, and contains the RIFF header info. So any container that is built off RIFF, or supports RIFF, can at least interpret the container data that is RIFF compatible and will lose anything that has been extended upon.

  • Thorry84@feddit.nl
    1·
    18 days ago

    I recently put in a lot of hours for a software system to be able to handle webp just as well as every other image format it already accepted. I put in a lot of work as well. Hadn’t heard about it for a while, but saw the feature release statement for the new version I knew my changes were in. It wasn’t on there. So I reached out to my contact and asked if there was an issue or did it get bumped to a later version or what? So she told me the marketing team that do the release statements decided not to include it. They stated for one, people already expect common formats to be handled. Saying you now handle a format looks bad, since people know you didn’t handle it before and were behind the curve. The second (probably more important) reason was nobody knew what webp even was and it’s only something technical people care about (they probably said nerds, but my contact translated). So no regular customer would be interested and it could only lead to confusion and questions.

    I hope somebody is happy with the work I put in tho. Somebody is going to drag a webp into the system and have it be accepted. Someday… I hope…

    • _stranger_@lemmy.world
      11·
      18 days ago
      1. Fuck those people for telling you this after you did the work
      2. Those reasons are hard-stop stupid. If they REALLY cared about the marketing they’d release it silently or add a “improvements to image format handling” line and leave it at that.
      • Thorry84@feddit.nl
        1·
        16 days ago

        Maybe I worded it incorrectly. The feature was released in that version. They just didn’t mention it in the release statement they put out to their customers. I’m sure there’s some changelog somewhere people can dig into where it says something like what you mentioned. Or it can just be under “Various small improvements” which they always add as a catch-all.

        So I’m happy, I did the job and got paid. Everyone I worked with was happy. And the feature got released. It’s was just a let down it didn’t get mentioned at all, even though I put quite a lot of work into it.

      • jj4211@lemmy.world
        0·
        18 days ago

        I will second the suggestion at something like “expanded support for more image formats”. One of my responsibilities is rolling the development log into customer release notes and I agree with the “changes that highlight a previous shortcoming can look bad”, and make accommodations for that all the time. I also try to make sure every developer that contributed can recognize their work in the release notes.

        “Expanded image format support” seems like something that if a customer hasn’t noticed, they would assume “oh they must have some customer with a weird proprietary format that they added but have to be vague about”. If it were related to customer requests, I would email the specific customers highlighting their need for webp is addressed after pushing the release notes

    • Lemminary@lemmy.world
      0·
      18 days ago

      I hope somebody is happy with the work I put in tho. Somebody is going to drag a webp into the system and have it be accepted.

      And that was me! I mean, not with your software but with someone else’s years ago. Still, in a weird anachronistic karma sort of way, thank you for caring.

    • lostbit@feddit.nlEnglish
      0·
      17 days ago

      a bit related.

      Was working for a comparison engine. Back in the day things where slow. But i made it lightning fast. Pretty proud.

      Untill a few weeks later the manager comes up, and tells me to make it SLOWER!

      apparently users thought it was suss that it was so fast and the results therefore where fake…

    • Rin@lemm.ee
      0·
      18 days ago

      I mean… most websites don’t use .bmp and that’s for a reason… that reason being that it sucks ass.

  • manxu@piefed.socialEnglish
    0·
    18 days ago

    The funniest thing is that even some of Google’s own products don’t accept Webp, like Google Voice.

    • bamboo@lemmy.blahaj.zoneEnglish
      0·
      18 days ago

      Shhhh just be happy Google Voice still exists, and isn’t in the graveyard. Personally I’d take RCS over webp in Google Voice.

      • manxu@piefed.socialEnglish
        0·
        18 days ago

        I feel with you. The product idea is awesome, the implementation is so-so, and progress is backwards. It’s heart-breaking, really, and so sad nobody has a real alternative.

    • drathvedro@lemm.ee
      0·
      18 days ago

      Just checked, our very corporate and much antiquated website does accept apng (sadly not publicly visible as it’s b2b only). We do deal with photography though, so we do expect multitude of formats and mostly either pass them unchanged or just feed them to ImageMagick and forget about it. The bane of our existence is mostly DNG which Adobe breaks every year or so by introducing breaking spec changes.

      EDIT: Haven’t found a place to even get an mng sample, though. Do you have any?

      • Maki@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        0·
        18 days ago

        MNG is a bit of an oddity; it was originally supposed to replace GIF but was itself replaced with PNG, Flash, and SVG. I have no such files available but ImageMagick can supposedly make one out of a number of PNG or JPG files if you’re interested in toying with it.

  • Noxy@pawb.socialEnglish
    0·
    17 days ago

    fucking Telegram automatically converts any webp sent in a message to a fucking sticker

    I didn’t want that. I want the ability to view the image, including zooming in and panning, and telegram forcing it into a sticker kills that completely

  • SatyrSack@lemmy.sdf.org
    0·
    18 days ago

    What is being implied here? That Website A encourages you to download an image from them in WEBP format, but you cannot then upload that image to Websites B through Z because those sites do not support WEBP?

  • skisnow@lemmy.caEnglish
    0·
    18 days ago

    The giant jpeg square artefact on the side of Homer’s head in the first frame undermines the message somewhat.

  • Fiona@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    0·
    18 days ago

    webp is absofuckinglutely inferior to JPEG-XL and that one is where you actually have that problem. I’m literally providing an avif-fallback on my website, because otherwise pretty much no browser would support anything.

    (Speaking of it, avif is also superior to webp.)

  • 1rre@discuss.tchncs.de
    0·
    18 days ago

    The real difference is between gif and animated webp… Even fewer places accept animated webp than normal webp and those that do often don’t even show it right (looking at you slack emojis) which is a travesty as the file size difference is huge

  • Rokin@lemm.eeEnglish
    0·
    18 days ago

    No webp for me, just because Google is pushig it and that is suspect.

    • TrickDacy@lemmy.world
      0·
      18 days ago

      Lol it’s like 10 years old at this point. Not sure they’re pushing it anymore. I think files that are half the size sell themselves