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

  • twistedtxb@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    21
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    APNG, WebP, AVIF, WebM. Not sure about JpegXL

    GIF is size and ressource heavy

    • ram@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      22
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      Of all the formats you mentioned these are supported on popular platforms:

      • Twitter: gif
      • Discord: gif
      • Mastodon: gif
      • Reddit: gif, apng
      • Tumblr: gif, webp
      • Lemmy: gif, apng, webp

      That’s why gifs are still a thing.

      • blujan
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        13
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        This is circular reasoning. They are wondering why gif is still a thing precisely because it’s so supported while other formats that are better aren’t and you are answering that it is because it’s supported while other formats aren’t.

        • ram@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          In that case the only people that can answer the question are the engineers from those platforms.

        • Beliriel@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Because it’s old and easy to handle. Yes it’s wasteful if you convert whole videos, but really anything under 10s with low rez is easily handleable by pretty much anything. Gif was the first animated format and that’s why it’s big. Also early internet forum days were absolutely plastered with pixelart gifs that ran for minutes and barely swalloed 100kb. You can get a lot of bang for your buck if you save on pixels and framerate. But ofc a 60fps render of some 4k bluray clip will eat your memory. Contrast that with 16×32 px gif that runs at 8fps.

          • Aceticon@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            GIF is big because it uses dictionary compression (pixel colors are mapped to a lookup table and then combinations of bits of increasing length are assigned to each table entry, the shortest combinations going for the most used colors, the longuest for the least used ones) which is great for stuff with clear (not-aliased) lines, a limited number of colors and large areas with just one flat color (such as drawings) but really bad for actual pictures (anything real world or imitating it, with natural shading).

            I believe GIF still beats all or most other formats (except, for larger images, the actual vector graphics formats used in the programs with which such drawings are made nowadays) for things like drawings. (That said, I think PNG has a mode that does the same kind of compression, used for stuff like the little lemmy icon next to our nicknames here)

            Animation on top if it was a bit of a hack due to the header format allowing multiple images in the same file, so it’s really just a slideshow that has no video-oriented compression (i.e. each image is compressed individually and stored whole even if it’s pretty much the last image with but a handful of pixels changed), hence why it’s big when used for animation.

            The kind of compression used in stuff like JPEG is based on the frequency of how each color channel changes across a block of pixels - which was 8x8 in the original JPEG - (i.e. it tries to match each block in the image to a sum of waves of different frequencies) which is much better for natural images, but loses information as a perfect match is usually impossible, and video compression methods have all sorts of intermediate frame compression techniques, the most basic of which is “this frame is the last frame with block such and such intact or moved around X pixels plus here’s a bunch of entirelly new pixels” which usually is a lot better than compressing each image individually and storing it, not taking in account previous or subsequent images.

            PS: I learned this stuff back at Uni, almost 3 decades ago, which shows you just how old this stuff is.

        • bouh@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          It’s called an industry standard. We’re using the same bolting in mechanic for ages. Only in computer science do things have to change every year…