I’m seeing Webp used in images in the forum. Is this the new layout?
Has BITOG switched to Webp?
- Thread starter Snagglefoot
- Start date
Webp is the new image standard for the forums. When a jpg or png is uploaded it will automatically be converted to webp. Webp is smaller, loads faster, supports animation, and supports lossless and lossy compression. Webp is better than jpg and png in every way for web images.
https://developers.google.com/speed/webp/faq
Just waiting for those still running their desktop PCs with Windows ME and Internet Explorer to complain about missing images
Don’t forget 10 year old iPads.Just waiting for those still running their desktop PCs with Windows ME and Internet Explorer to complain about missing images
- Joined
- Dec 16, 2022
- Messages
- 1,128
Just waiting for those still running their desktop PCs with Windows ME and Internet Explorer to complain about missing images
"I use lynx, you insensitive clod"
https://soylentnews.org/pollBooth.pl?qid=162&display=full
Since it's the forum image uploader that's doing the image conversion to Webp, to what compression is it set?
In Photoshop the quality slider for Webp goes from 0 to 100 and at 100/lossless the Webp file size exceeds that of a JPG (same pixel count) at the highest quality setting of 12 with a Saved for Web JPG at at the highest setting of 10 being actually a bit smaller than the plain JPG. I tried it. I can upload the four file versions of the same image somewhere else and hotlink here for comparison if anybody cares.
JPG (quality 12 on 0-12 scale), 558KB
JPG Saved for Web (quality 10 on 0-10 scale), 533 KB
Webp (lossless), 764KB
Webp (quality 75 out of 100 scale), 96KB
In Photoshop the quality slider for Webp goes from 0 to 100 and at 100/lossless the Webp file size exceeds that of a JPG (same pixel count) at the highest quality setting of 12 with a Saved for Web JPG at at the highest setting of 10 being actually a bit smaller than the plain JPG. I tried it. I can upload the four file versions of the same image somewhere else and hotlink here for comparison if anybody cares.
JPG (quality 12 on 0-12 scale), 558KB
JPG Saved for Web (quality 10 on 0-10 scale), 533 KB
Webp (lossless), 764KB
Webp (quality 75 out of 100 scale), 96KB
Last edited:
garageman402
$100 Site Donor 2024
Ya or 11 year old iMacs running 10.14 with Safari browser. I have to run Firefox to get images now......
Apple ended support for that 3 years ago. That's a security risk, not to mention being able to display images.
No, the originals would take up huge amounts of storage.
Switching to webp saved us 25% of the image storage space we were using. With jpg we had 40GB stored now with webp we have 30GB stored.
Good for BITOG but that doesn't answer my question.
He is - and he does everything gratis.
This is not a money-making operation. The little bit of ad revenue and money from site sponsors goes into things like web-hosting, servers, and software support.
Nobody here is getting paid or making any money.
So, what @JeffKeryk says is right on the mark - this site runs smoothly because Wayne puts in so much of his own time and expertise.
The default maxImageResizeQuality for Xenforo is 85%
Thanks. That figures with the numbers I estimated based on image size (pixels x pixels) and file size after downloading a WebP file from BITOG.
Last edited:
In Silicon Valley, we use the acronym, KSAs, which is, "Knowledge, Skills and Abilities". KSAs lead to results...
I am a veteran of major mission critical software solutions and can tell you @wwillson has KSAs in spades. He would be flat-out prized here. Good thing he works for free cuz we probably couldn't afford him...
Half the time I don't know what he's talking about but it sure sounds cool!
Last edited:
So you're saying I should upload MORE unnecessarily high quality images
/s
In all seriousness, storage and hosting isn't cheap, efficiency is it
I knew something was up, the Emojis when you "like/love/wow" a post started looking different
I remember a few months back I was having issues uploading images from Chrome in Android, lately it's been flawless
Let's try it
This is a 12.5 mpixel 5.1MB Ultra HDR shot (that didn't come out perfect)
Shrunk down to 206.2kb, most efficient
Similar threads
