Fuck off. Intentionally reducing the quality of your images is shitposting.
Landon Watson
Proof of webm transparency support in Opera 37.0
Caleb Campbell
Here is the original PNG. A full fat 1,190KB
Isaac Myers
>image file size reduction: ~4X So, it's pointless.
Caleb Campbell
You can change the -qmin and -qmax to 4 to have very little quality loss.
I forgot to mention that is what what my webm was encoded with.
Asher Phillips
It can be more depending on source. VP8 compression is just that good.
Joshua Torres
Here is another example. Webm was encoded with -qmin and -qmax of 4 (highest vp8 quality) and has a file size of 279KB. PNG used was 1,363KB. Total file size reduction: ~5X
Jaxson Turner
Here is the original PNG. A full fat 1,363KB
Christopher Evans
Here is another example. Webm was encoded with -qmin and -qmax of 4 (highest vp8 quality) and has a file size of 193KB. PNG used was 1,177KB. Total file size reduction: ~6X
Jeremiah Martin
Here is the original PNG. A full fat 1,177KB
Ayden Clark
wtf
Joseph Jenkins
Just use jpg.
Logan Richardson
Does not support transparency, needs to be 2X as big in file size to compete with VP8 used in these static webms.
Lucas Jones
Gonna try this out.
png is 1.17mb
Alexander King
Better yet who cares about filesize anymore
Adrian Richardson
qmin and qmax set to 4 for webm
file size is 261kb
whoa
Carson Butler
>noticeable quality loss >doesn't work on all browsers >load time is longer than the original png Give this man a Nobel prize.
Adrian Davis
This. Let's all demand Sup Forums accept TIFF images and upload raw 10-20MB images. Everyone has 1GB/s internet and Sup Forums has unlimited bandwidth for all users amirite? mobile user are a myth.
Anthony Wood
>mobile user are a myth. Mobile users aren't a myth. But i sure wish they'd leave.
Owen Gomez
>>noticeable quality loss I don't see it
>>doesn't work on all browsers Why are you not using Opera or Chrome?
>>load time is longer than the original png Are you on dial-up internet? Sorry to hear than senpai.
Joseph Turner
>I don't see it Compare the text in and . Just for an example.
>Chrome Because botnet.
Luke Brown
Look closer
>Why don't you change your browser to what I tell you because I want to change what images you can post on this site! Are you Hitler maybe?
Yeah a png loads faster than your gay webms even though it's 4x bigger, I surely have slow Internet.
Dominic Parker
I don't get it, text looks the same. Maybe it's my laptop. It's an old HP from like 2010.
Aiden Morales
>Maybe it's my laptop. The text is very obviously corrupted in the webm. If your laptop has such a shitty panel that you can't tell the difference then you are not in a position to make assessments of image quality.
If you just want to reduce filesize just churn the png through a few filters.
Gabriel Sullivan
For anyone wondering what is talking about, look at the red text. Though apart from that the quality loss isn't that bad. I'm impressed.
Here is a link to compare them better: screenshotcomparison.com/comparison/175284
Hunter Morris
>converting from lossy to lossy >converting images to videos
Or you could just use mozjpeg. While the results might be noisier when zoomed in close, at least you can have full chroma resolution with it. Just compare picture related to and the source in and notice how the VP8 version looks notably blurrier thanks to 4:2:0 chroma subsampling.
Kayden Reed
You can see the general blurriness all over the edges, but nice try Satan.
Josiah Smith
>>converting from lossy to lossy He's using png sources senpai, which I assume have the best quality.
>>converting images to videos Sup Forums refuses to allow webp
>Or you could just use mozjpeg. While the results might be noisier when zoomed in close, at least you can have full chroma resolution with it. I honestly would rather have bleeding colors than the shitstain noisy artifacts JPG produces
Liam Gomez
I'd also like to point it out that it transparency doesn't work on all browsers since you like to ignore it.
James Myers
Holy shit I must be going blind because the only difference I can see is the red text looks more blocky on the webm. That's it.
Adrian Price
Who cares about transparency? If you want to make reaction images for Sup Forums you can just put the appropriate blue-tone into the background. That used to be extremely common a few years ago. If you want the transparency for other purposes (further editing) then use the original fucking png.
Christopher Smith
WHY THE FUCK ARE YOU NOT USING CHROME OR OPERA?
Who uses firecuck or internet exploder lmao?
Jackson Collins
Move your mouse over the two images rapidly, so basically you switch between them instantly and you'll see it.
Owen Jenkins
>supporting chrome >cuck >lmao Fuck off.
Jace Morales
Yeah because supporting firefox which is infested with feminists and SJWs is a much better option.
Jordan Cook
Seriously, get the fuck back to .
Samuel Martin
Or you could just save the JPGs at a decent quality.
The chroma subsampling issues can be very much visible at 100% zoom already whereas with decent JPG quality you'll have to zoom in and stick your nose to the screen to see the noise clearly enough to be bothered by it.
Here's another mouseover comparison between (resaved as PNG) and the attached picture:
>>using a JPG in a comparison >Are you retarded? user's point isn't to prove that lossy formats are lossy. His point is to prove that jpg is better than webm.
Grayson Butler
It was OP's point you fagistani. Tell it to him.
David Johnson
lmao, what the fuck is going on here?
Jacob Robinson
The comparison was between VP8 and JPG compression, not between source and VP8. Read the post and the labels next time.
Hudson Rodriguez
Then use the same file size ya knobsocket.
Here I did a comparison for you. PNG is extracted from 279KB Webm. JPG is 282KB, so it even get's a slight advantage in file size.
They're both shit. Going that far down in quality is pointless. Are we facebook?
Xavier Powell
Sup Forums here. This is from a webp thread we had a while ago.
I think that in all honesty we should adopt Webp as soon as possible on Sup Forums. OP's method of image storage is shit but a clue as to how good WebP is. Compression is actually better in WebP than VP8 now I think.
Anyway pic related is a scaled down version of a test an user did on Sup Forums.
>Are you on dial-up internet? Sorry to hear than senpai. >This. Let's all demand Sup Forums accept TIFF images and upload raw 10-20MB images. Everyone has 1GB/s internet and Sup Forums has unlimited bandwidth for all users amirite? This fucking nigger.
Juan Perez
Not our fault if you use a shitty browser
Benjamin Hernandez
You are just plain shitposting at this point.
Julian Ortiz
Do people really use browsers other than chrome and opera? Do they like constant crashes and non-support for cool things like transparent webms?
Honest question here, I used firefox for about 4 years but gave up with all the instability issues it has.
Mason Wilson
>Then use the same file size ya knobsocket.
Look at in comparison to then. The JPG's got more noise if you look up close, but because of the full chroma resolution it still looks much nicer at 100% zoom. This was my main point anyway - full chroma resolution is a much nicer perk as far as quality is concerned, especially since you can just bump up the JPG quality to reduce the noise even further without ending up with that much bigger files.
Again, try actually reading the posts next time.
Joseph Jenkins
yourself fucked.
Sebastian Clark
cuck
Noah Reed
>cuck Quality response.
Blake Hill
Not him but what do you think of Webp? It looks very promising especially what posted.
Also is it true webp now has better image compression than VP8 which it was based on?
Adam Barnes
Does webp kills the iqdb?
Kevin Thomas
WebP suffers from the same issue of being limited to 4:2:0 chroma that I've been going on about in this thread, which is a pretty substantial issue considering that you can have full resolution chroma with JPG.
On the whole I don't think WebP offers good enough improvements for the massive loss of universal compatibility you get from using it. As far as new image formats are considered, something like FLIF and BPG are much more interesting.
Noah Myers
Cut you deep enough
Christopher Wood
Webp is not supported on iqdb (for now). However you can easily convert the webp file to a png in ffmpeg (-i in.webp out.png) to use it on iqdb until it does.
Kayden Carter
See? You can do better when trying user.
Nathaniel Reed
>no excuses for saucefags Nice.
Isaac Edwards
>implying you can't just search for the thumbnail like you're doing for most webms already
Kayden Cook
But webp has the most support in terms of being a meme format. It can replace png, jpg, and gif right? As I understand, it has lossless encoding, transparency, and animation support as well.
Looks like a great format to replace the clusterfuck of image formats we currently have.
James Turner
>it has lossless encoding, transparency, and animation support as well. So does apng.
Jaxon Phillips
GIF is better replaced with actual video files (which can just be webms or mp4s), and again, I don't see it offering enough over PNG and JPG to warrant the enormous loss in compatibility. Especially when it only supports 4:2:0 chroma in lossy mode whereas JPG can do 4:4:4.
Alexander Hill
>GIF is better replaced with actual video files (which can just be webms or mp4s) Kinda seems like a chore to press play on a 2-3 second animation. WebP would just automatically play, no video player required. This seems great for webpages.
>and again, I don't see it offering enough over PNG and JPG to warrant the enormous loss in compatibility. Well it basically replaces both formats and adds the ability to encode images with lossy compression and still maintain transparency. Seems like a big deal especially for web devs.
>Especially when it only supports 4:2:0 chroma in lossy mode whereas JPG can do 4:4:4. Yeah but JPG will still look like shit despite that. See
Jacob Kelly
apng is a dead format unfortunately.
Julian Brown
I'm only doing this because I love you Daiz. The JPG looks like shit.
>WebP would just automatically play, no video player required.
Protip: You need just as much video playing capabilities to play VP8 video inside a WebP container as you do to play VP8 video inside a WebM container.
And you can achieve "GIF-like" video on the web much the same with
>Well it basically replaces both formats
Knowing people that'd probably just mean they'll fuck up whether to go lossless or lossy even more than they do with PNG and JPG right now.
>Yeah but JPG will still look like shit despite that.
Look at and at 100% zoom. The most notable difference between the two is the chroma subsampling issues in the VP8 version. The JPG is noisier up close, but you can reduce that by simply bumping up the quality, which doesn't increase the filesize THAT much. I'd take over the VP8 version in pretty much any day of the week.
William Green
>285KB
That's not my JPG, the ones I posted were 274KB and 353KB, encoded with mozjpeg.
Isaac Russell
Hmm you're right. The one I downloaded from 4chin is of different filesize? What the fuck...
Jayden Ramirez
I don't see anything transparent in that image
Justin Jackson
That's because you're using an obsolete web browser. Upgrade to chrome.
Dominic Peterson
Oh boy I sure can't wait to have to open a video player to look at static images
Jeremiah Campbell
You're supposed to convert them into jpgs after saving them.
Matthew Price
You're okay with JPGs that have noise and destroy a lot of detail?
Also I'm not talking about a hacked webm to display an image. I'm talking about webp which probably has better image compression than VP8. Webp was based off VP8 I frame encoding but they are not 100% the same right?
Gabriel Gomez
>Upgrade to chrome. Did not read a word after that
Dominic Mitchell
Also there was a hidden Carlos in my post
Hunter Johnson
>what is image hover in 4chin settings
kek
William Richardson
What about rotational velocidensity?
Sebastian Smith
Goddamn, that sounds way easier than what I've been doing (printing them)
Caleb Cooper
>Webp was based off VP8 I frame encoding but they are not 100% the same right?
It's the same VP8 bitstream. If they've made any still image encoding improvements there it should have made its way back to the video encoding side as well. The lossless mode is slightly different since the image is stored as ARGB there, but for lossy compression it really shouldn't be any different than with this webm trickery here.
And yes, if we're going lossy then I'll take some noise with full-resolution chroma over less noise with half-resolution chroma. And filesize isn't honestly that critical that you couldn't just bump up the JPG quality some. You're not going to be destroying a lot of detail unless you set the quality to really low.
Gabriel Price
>meme format Fuck off with this bullshit.
Jeremiah Young
That was the end of his post. Noone did.
Jayden Miller
...
Kayden Anderson
>not reading right to left You are not weeaboo enough for Sup Forums.
Xavier Jones
Now I see why the other anons love you so much. You're really fun to talk to and know your shit.
Anyway yeah for typical images WebP won't improve much. However what about high res photos? As phone displays start to exceed 1440p (see sony Z5 premium) and people start to adopt 4K res screen they'll want to look at nice 8-16MP hig res photos of stuff. Those will be fuckhuge and shaving them down to less than 10MB file sizes would help with loading times across all connections. Some users may have 1Gbit/s connections but it doesn't mean the website owner can serve them images at 1Gbit/s.
Luke Rodriguez
JPG on suicide watch?
Ryan Stewart
jpg will never die. jpg is the strongest.
Mason Anderson
Probably this. JPG is the undead cockroach from 1992 that haunts us to this very day. We'll probably still be using JPG when we have 16K res monitors.