is it a formatting step that an image goes through when uploaded? I’m tired of converting image after image back into jpg, so if there’s like a step I can take to avoid it being a webp, it would help to know

    • JackbyDev@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      50
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      A lot of apps don’t support webp yet. Facebook Messenger is a good example. If I want to share a meme that was webp it says “GIF” in the gallery and says it can’t upload images in that format.

      • boletus@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        24
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        So sad that the poor management at Meta can’t find the money to add webp support to one of the most used chatting apps in the world 🥺

      • jacktherippah@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        1 year ago

        Wanna hear something funny? So iirc webp is a Google format. The other day I was preparing slides for class with my friends. Anyway, we were on Google slides. I tried to upload this image, but it says it’s unsupported. So i checked the format and whaddaya know? webp. So a Google service doesn’t even support a Google file format. LOL

      • gamermanh@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        14
        arrow-down
        9
        ·
        1 year ago

        I’ve literally only run into 1 program that couldn’t handle webp and that was a FOMOD creation tool for Bethesda game modding, and even then it worked but just tossed an unknown extension error

        Though if you’re using Facebook messenger that’s probably the issue right there lol

        • LillyPip
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          14
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          That’s not how conversion works.

            • LillyPip
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              6
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              You can ‘change’ the extension of any file whose innards match the file type you’re ‘changing’ it to.

              Under the hood, nothing changes. Windows opens it anyway because it reads the actual file data and basically assumes you must be an idiot.

              e: change the file extension of a jpg to txt. Windows shrugs and says okay, if that’s what you really want, and shows you the code. Knock yourself out, it says, I’ll show you what I can, but it doesn’t convert the file.

            • LillyPip
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              5
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              No it doesn’t.

              This may be hard to understand if you don’t know how it works, but nothing is being converted. It’s like opening a .docx in a .txt editor. It will show you the data it can, and there’s lots of crossover in image formats.

              Sorry, I can’t explain it better without getting more technical than you can probably understand, but it’s not converting anything.

              • PeleSpirit@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                6
                arrow-down
                6
                ·
                1 year ago

                I know it doesn’t convert, lol. It’s a loophole to get around places that don’t accept webp as an extension. It still reads it just fine. Thanks for the condescending attitude though, it made me laugh.

                • LillyPip
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  7
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  Sorry, I didn’t mean to be condescending. Glad it made you laugh, tho.

                  I’m only trying to educate because most people seem to think everything should be a jpg or think it’s all magic (this thread is full of that), and this is one of the few topics I know quite a lot about.

                  Didn’t mean to offend.

                  e: rereading my last comment, I see what you mean. What I meant was it takes understanding of several scientific papers detailing the algorithms (which took me a bit to understand), and I can’t easily condense that into a comment online. Sorry for how that came across.

                  • PeleSpirit@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    7
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    No problem, you’re still a 100x better than most of reddit. I realize that I wasn’t changing the file type, it’s just that some sites don’t accept webp. It doesn’t make a visual difference so I don’t really care and change it. You’re right in that I don’t know what it actually does though and why some sites don’t want them.

    • Treczoks@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      14
      ·
      1 year ago

      Just a few weeks ago, they found a big security flaw in webp and webm. Which affected nearly all programs using it, because they all use the same library.

      Webp and webm are simply not mature enough for professional use.

      • LillyPip
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Web images should be converted to png, then, never jpg (unless they’re actual photos).

        • VindictiveJudge@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          I don’t see a reason to convert to jpg even for photos. Its advantages are related to the way compression artifacts looked more natural than the compression artifacts of contemporary formats. Why save as a format that’s prone to obvious compression artifacts at all anymore?

          • brianorca@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            1 year ago

            Depends if you are aiming for best quality for a given file size, or if you don’t care how big the file is.

          • LillyPip
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Jpg has some advantages with photos, because it takes advantage of pixel fuzzing which isn’t visually noticeable in photos and can contribute greatly to higher compression.
            It’s objectively terrible for everything else, though (because of the pixel fuzzing).

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

        Webp and webm are simply not mature enough for professional use.

        They are too old already, lol