Pls. ad webp to the allowed image format

[E9A7F3bD]

On Linux, if you have ImageMagick installed you can just type in the commandline:.
[Code] It’s basically the ffmpeg equivalent for images.

You can actually use ffmpeg to handle it directly, for simple task:
[Code]

[E9A7F3bD]

I think we're talking at cross purposes here. My point is not to talk about the advantages and disadvantages of an image standard, but to allow the new format as a suffix in the forum, which is not rocket science, because it is simply a suffix. No script, no programming, no extension.
Technically, every current browser can read this format. This means absolutely no additional effort for the user.
And it's no secret that things change and evolve from time to time, especially on the Internet.

Totally agree.
Except for some previous versions of webp that have vulnerabilities (which have been fixed), I could't see any real reason to prevent webp from adopting.

[E9A7F3bD]

Golden rule: if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

I think this phrase is often over-interpreted.
To a large extent, it also depends on how much effort you want to put in, as well as your aesthetics and standards.

[mimzy]

IIRC, webp is supported by the new FLM image uploader.

[E9A7F3bD]

IIRC, webp is supported by the new FLM image uploader.

Yes, but not the normal attachments.

I found that the images uploaded by "FLM image uploader" can only show smaller preview images, what should I do if I want to display the full image like an attachment?

[mimzy]

I found that the images uploaded by "FLM image uploader" can only show smaller preview images, what should I do if I want to display the full image like an attachment?

https://www.first-loves.com/forums/view ... 11#p115211

[E9A7F3bD]

viewtopic.php?p=115211#p115211

Thanks, that post I missed. Very good work.

But maybe it should be made simpler and more transparent in how it is used.
I mean, no newcomer may see that post. And manual code editing is cumbersome and error-prone.

[E9A7F3bD]

I think it should provide a switch of both views, when the page is rendering rather than when posting/editing.

By default, it is displayed in grid view (overview and space saving), and after active switching, it is displayed in large images, so you don’t need to click to view one by one.

example (similar effect achieved through "spoiler", but not good enough):
viewtopic.php?p=122594#p122594

[David32441]

Personally I can't see the benefit of webp for any minor size improvement it might make. Is it really that much better than jpg? I would hope people would know that jpg is a sliding scale between very lossy and lossless (see settings in your image editing program). PNG of course is lossless. A still very good jpg is normally 5x smaller than a PNG.

[E9A7F3bD]

Personally I can't see the benefit of webp for any minor size improvement it might make. Is it really that much better than jpg? I would hope people would know that jpg is a sliding scale between very lossy and lossless (see settings in your image editing program). PNG of course is lossless. A still very good jpg is normally 5x smaller than a PNG.

"JPEG 2000" is widely used and has good compatibility, but it has actually been phased out anyway.

"WebP" is based on "VP8" codec and has been widely supported by software and hardware in recent years and is regarded as a direct alternative to "jpg (JPEG 2000)". WebP also supports "-q 0~100" quality control, and the default recommendation is "-q 75".

"JPEG XL", "AVIF" are future open pictures solutions and has been supported by some browsers. HEIC/HEIF used in some hardware devices, but there are royalty issues when using HEVC/H.265 codex.

So, for the moment, there should be no obstacles to supporting "WebP" and "AVIF".