Pls. ad webp to the allowed image format

[Nasuada]

Hi,

can you ad pls. the webp graphic format to the list of allowed upload formats. Thanks.

[David32441]

I personally dont like this format. Have to screengrab the image then paste that into the art prog I use, then resave as jpg to be able to open it in various media servers I use. So prefer people use JPG and PNG. But maybe I'm old fashioned. What's the advantage of webp images?

[Nasuada]

I donÄt use it personally, but I recognized that it's slowly more present on the web. I read a few days ago about it from a developer of professional Wordpress Themes who I used (never recognized it before) and yesterday I searched for Images on Google for a posting here on FLM and get two Images in this format, so I need to download them first, open them in an Image-Editor and convert them to JPG.

And the special thing (who sounds very interesting for me as website programmer) around this Format you can found on Wiki. They write it in short: "It supports both lossy and lossless compression". So that mean, that you can have an RAW Image for example, shot by an DSLR and made the 16 MB (just an example size) file much smaller without losing any image information.

The Image Format is developed bei Google since 2010 and it was finally released in 2018. It can replace JPG, PNG and GIF. So in this point it can be also interesting, because you need now only one format for different features. In the past you need PNG to get good image results with transparent backgrounds like my rounded Avatar. GIF you need for animation and JPG for.... JPG Images
I will play a bit with this "new" format soon to see, what's the result and if it safe really will safe space (especially for little animations it would be interesting).

Anyway... I know that it's not so complicated to ad a new supported Format to phpBB on the whitelist. That's why I start my request.

[reptile12]

Convert webp's to png so it's lossless conversion IMO.

Webp is a totally useless format btw i think btw (nothing against your request though)

[Night457]

Supposedly webp is a smaller size for same quality than jpg or png. I have not tested that theory. I only use webp when I am looking for images to share on FLM. There are online sites that convert webp to jpg so that is what I use if I want to share the image here. Most of the sites convert from a URL, and then allow you to download the jpg. Just search "convert webp to jpg"

[reptile12]

Supposedly webp is a smaller size for same quality than jpg or png. I have not tested that theory. I only use webp when I am looking for images to share on FLM. There are online sites that convert webp to jpg so that is what I use if I want to share the image here. Most of the sites convert from a URL, and then allow you to download the jpg. Just search "convert webp to jpg"

It was smaller last time i looked at it but it doesn't matter to me. i want backwards compatibility and broader compatibility rather than new innovations at this point. also can just use paint to open and convert webp if you use windows.

[Night457]

It does not matter to me but it does matter to web-designers who want their pages as compact and fast-loading as possible, which is why they use smaller images and videos. They need to save their bandwidth for the popup video ads! New innovations eventually become standard all the time, c'mon you know that! I remember the days when we had to do mathematical calculations with paper and pencil! I thought I had TRIED Paint to convert it and it failed, but I am not sure, but that had to be my first thought rather than an online converter. Maybe my Paint is too old, predating webp?

FLM is the only place I ever use images, so if it can handle any image I throw at it without conversion then that is fine by me.

[reptile12]

no, jpg images and image compression is the least of worries for todays websites speeds
there have been ultra fast webpages ever since the 90s with jpg images :< i know some people make this argument but it's a lot more important how your code is, where your server is how, how fast the server is and so on imo. that's why webp to me is just not worth it

[Night457]

Then why do so many websites use webp? Just for fun? I really do believe they are squeezing every bit they can, the same as YouTube is compressing its videos to aid in streaming. One image is nothing, but millions do add up. The 90s webpages had text and images, not streaming video to compete with the rest. And goddamnit, I remember taking a half hour to download one EFFing dirty picture!

It seems the only reason you don't like webp is that you can not use it outside the webpage without converting it, which is also MY problem. Just browsing a website I will never notice one way or another what type of images they use because I will not hit F12 to look. As long as the software keeps up with the new formats then we won't have problems.

DivX, h264, h265, AV1 -- I am definitely falling behind the development curve, but it is not going to stop and wait for me.

[reptile12]

sure but saving bandwidth costs when your a big corporation is different from promoting it as needed to create fast websites. Wordpress for example has a google contact and they say you should use webp on smaller sites for better speed and that i do not believe in. i believe doing good hosting, good code / not much bloat etc is much more important