If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(C|Net)   Facebook is serving images in Google's WebP format, drawing ire from users who like to steal selfies   (news.cnet.com) divider line 48
    More: Interesting, Google, Facebook, computer users, image format, file sizes, web servers, file format  
•       •       •

4756 clicks; posted to Geek » on 22 Apr 2013 at 1:49 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



48 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2013-04-22 12:01:40 PM
I for one, support this move. If it limits the number of truly annoying motivational and "like this" BS photos on my wall, I'm all for it.

/quite happily un-friends people for no reason that is apparent to them
 
2013-04-22 01:21:03 PM

ajinbc: I for one, support this move. If it limits the number of truly annoying motivational and "like this" BS photos on my wall, I'm all for it.

/quite happily un-friends people for no reason that is apparent to them


media.tumblr.com
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2013-04-22 01:47:00 PM
And Opera users who don't want WebP can set their browser to pose as IE when visiting Facebook.

Can't they simply remove the webp file format from some accept-foobar header list in the browser configuration?
 
2013-04-22 01:57:05 PM
This shows the same image in JPEG and WebP, with WebP on the right. At this resolution, you're unlikely to see any differences. (Click to enlarge.)

No it's not, you retards. That's a single JPEG.

http://i.i.com.com/cnwk.1d/i/tim/2013/04/22/JPEG-vs-WebP.jpg

/wow! the tv in that tv commercial is so much clearer than mine!
 
2013-04-22 01:58:38 PM

jonny_q: This shows the same image in JPEG and WebP, with WebP on the right. At this resolution, you're unlikely to see any differences. (Click to enlarge.)

No it's not, you retards. That's a single JPEG.

http://i.i.com.com/cnwk.1d/i/tim/2013/04/22/JPEG-vs-WebP.jpg

/wow! the tv in that tv commercial is so much clearer than mine!


I noticed this too, hilarious.
 
2013-04-22 01:58:48 PM

ZAZ: And Opera users who don't want WebP can set their browser to pose as IE when visiting Facebook.

Can't they simply remove the webp file format from some accept-foobar header list in the browser configuration?


Removing webp from the accept list just means you won't get any of the images; posing as IE will force facebook to serve up jpg.
 
2013-04-22 01:59:00 PM

ajinbc: I for one, support this move. If it limits the number of truly annoying motivational and "like this" BS photos on my wall, I'm all for it.



How would it?
 
2013-04-22 02:01:37 PM
Why is Firefox holding off on support? I know sometimes their reasons are good, but sometimes they aren't.
 
2013-04-22 02:03:13 PM
First world problems.
 
2013-04-22 02:05:31 PM

the_sidewinder: How would it?


It doesn't at all. It just, for now, inhibits your ability to save a .webp photo, add some text in 14pt Impact and upload it to imgur without first downloading a special program for editing/converting .webp files. It's a temporary problem.
 
2013-04-22 02:10:08 PM
prtscr
 
2013-04-22 03:06:02 PM

wildcardjack: prtscr


This. Or, a third party app like PicPick. Comes in handy for those sites that don't let you save images.

*shrug*
 
2013-04-22 03:14:51 PM
Also, I tried the author's sample photo gallery.

WEBP format: downloaded fine, opened in Picasa viewer with no issues. Total size = 81k
JPEG format: Viewed in browser, did not need to download. Total size = 81k

Not sure where author boy is getting his numbers...*shrug*
 
2013-04-22 03:24:22 PM
From TFA:   "I do graphic design and I find it beyond annoying to have to have a special viewer for this thing, I want my images to be in .jpg. like it was before."

So you're in graphics design, you're downloading images off of FaceBook, you can't cope with a different image format, and you prefer to work in JPG?  Seriously?

I find it amazing how ignorant some graphics folks can be about their medium.  I've had to deal with people generating graphics for me that didn't understand what an alpha channel was, or the difference between raster and vector graphics.  And, of course, there are the folks that say, "it's on the Internet, that means it's public domain."

They are definitely a minority, but I don't understand how they exist at all.
 
2013-04-22 03:38:06 PM
Don't get the issue?  An image format is an image format.  I'm sure all viewers and editors will be updating their software ASAP to handle it.
 
2013-04-22 04:20:12 PM

jonny_q: the_sidewinder: How would it?

It doesn't at all. It just, for now, inhibits your ability to save a .webp photo, add some text in 14pt Impact and upload it to imgur without first downloading a special program for editing/converting .webp files. It's a temporary problem.


Does it also disable your Print Screen button?
 
2013-04-22 04:22:02 PM

StrangeQ: jonny_q: the_sidewinder: How would it?

It doesn't at all. It just, for now, inhibits your ability to save a .webp photo, add some text in 14pt Impact and upload it to imgur without first downloading a special program for editing/converting .webp files. It's a temporary problem.

Does it also disable your Print Screen button?


wildcardjack: prtscr


Nevermind...beat to the punch.

/anyone that has trouble downloading any so-called "protected" content off the internet really isn't trying that hard.
 
2013-04-22 04:29:14 PM
Fish in a Barrel : I find it amazing how ignorant some graphics folks can be about their medium. I've had to deal with people generating graphics for me that didn't understand what an alpha channel was, or the difference between raster and vector graphics. And, of course, there are the folks that say, "it's on the Internet, that means it's public domain."

Try explaining gamut to people who want prints.

What do you mean there are colors we can't print?

Colors we can't print, mother farker there are colors you can't even SEE.
 
2013-04-22 04:37:04 PM

lordargent: Fish in a Barrel : I find it amazing how ignorant some graphics folks can be about their medium. I've had to deal with people generating graphics for me that didn't understand what an alpha channel was, or the difference between raster and vector graphics. And, of course, there are the folks that say, "it's on the Internet, that means it's public domain."

Try explaining gamut to people who want prints.

What do you mean there are colors we can't print?

Colors we can't print, mother farker there are colors you can't even SEE.


Then explain to them how pink isn't even a color.
 
2013-04-22 04:41:11 PM

Fish in a Barrel: From TFA:   "I do graphic design and I find it beyond annoying to have to have a special viewer for this thing, I want my images to be in .jpg. like it was before."

So you're in graphics design, you're downloading images off of FaceBook, you can't cope with a different image format, and you prefer to work in JPG?  Seriously?

I find it amazing how ignorant some graphics folks can be about their medium.  I've had to deal with people generating graphics for me that didn't understand what an alpha channel was, or the difference between raster and vector graphics.  And, of course, there are the folks that say, "it's on the Internet, that means it's public domain."

They are definitely a minority, but I don't understand how they exist at all.


Because they are usually really, really, really cheap.  You can be a huge fark-up for 8 dollars an hour and get away with it if your competitor is charging 40.
 
2013-04-22 04:43:06 PM

downstairs: Don't get the issue?  An image format is an image format.  I'm sure all viewers and editors will be updating their software ASAP to handle it.


The GIMP already has a plugin for WebP.
 
2013-04-22 04:51:21 PM
RatOmeter:

downstairs: Don't get the issue? An image format is an image format. I'm sure all viewers and editors will be updating their software ASAP to handle it.

The GIMP already has a plugin for WebP.


Nearly simulposted the same link. Notably, the plugin has been around since 2011.
 
2013-04-22 05:26:21 PM
I was doing just eyeball comparison between the jpg and webp images that the article linked to and I can't see a difference. Even with the ones that he was saying there were color differences, like the stained glass one, it looked the same. Side by side, zoomed in, they all looked the same.

I hope xnview makes a plugin for webp... oh wait they already do, and they have a batch converter that handles webp also.
 
2013-04-22 05:55:16 PM

RatOmeter: The GIMP already has a plugin for WebP.


Yeah, but who wants to wake him up?

24.media.tumblr.com


I'm sure he has "plug-ins" for other things as well.
 
2013-04-22 06:03:27 PM

lordargent: there are colors you can't even SEE


Color is a product of the visual system and brain.  If your eyes and brain work, there are no colors you can't see.  There are frequencies you can't see, though.
 
2013-04-22 06:09:12 PM

StrangeQ: lordargent: Fish in a Barrel : I find it amazing how ignorant some graphics folks can be about their medium. I've had to deal with people generating graphics for me that didn't understand what an alpha channel was, or the difference between raster and vector graphics. And, of course, there are the folks that say, "it's on the Internet, that means it's public domain."

Try explaining gamut to people who want prints.

What do you mean there are colors we can't print?

Colors we can't print, mother farker there are colors you can't even SEE.

Then explain to them how pink isn't even a color.


Oh goddammit, stop repeating this nonsense.  Pink is a color.  There is no single-frequency light that appears pink to us, though.  Color and frequency are not the same thing.
 
2013-04-22 06:29:04 PM

raygundan: lordargent: there are colors you can't even SEE

Color is a product of the visual system and brain.  If your eyes and brain work, there are no colors you can't see.  There are frequencies you can't see, though.


Color nazi
 
2013-04-22 07:07:12 PM
Can't you just use snipping tool if you want to steal pictures
 
2013-04-22 07:21:06 PM

raygundan: lordargent: there are colors you can't even SEE

Color is a product of the visual system and brain.  If your eyes and brain work, there are no colors you can't see.  There are frequencies you can't see, though.


What about people who can see a bit further past the average spectrum? Like those sensitive to UV or infrared? Would that include them as "color" then?

Note the term "color" can be used to mean all spectrum or just visual ones depending on the field of work. In a lot of detector designs, the spectrum being filtered and/or passthrough are still referred to as "colors" despite being in the long to medium wavelength infrared.
 
2013-04-22 08:22:26 PM

imgod2u: Note the term "color" can be used to mean all spectrum or just visual ones depending on the field of work.


"Color" and "spectrum" (or frequency) are not the same thing.  If you have the human-normal three types of cone cells, but slightly wider spectrum response, you don't see any new colors-- but you DO see a wider range of frequencies.  Let's say it's your blue cone cell sees further into UV than a normal human cone cell, for example-- that doesn't create new colors, but it means things that normal people don't see at all appear blue to you.

Where you might kinda-sorta be right is if a person actually had an extra cone cell type.  There's some indication that a few women are tetrachromats, and have a fourth cone cell.  These people would genuinely have a different color perception using a four-dimensional model to represent the continuous spectral range around them rather than a three-dimensional one.

But that's the critical bit.  Light has frequency.  Our brains assign those frequencies a color based on which of the three sensors the light excites.   But a lot of information is lost-- color is not frequency.  Where it gets mixed up is that a lot of people think of the rainbow as "all the colors."  Obviously, pink's not in there.  Nor is brown.  Or a bunch of other multispectral-only responses our visual system generates.  UV and IR aren't colors, although I can understand why people might call them that in less precise terms-- because we think of the rainbow as the range of colors, it's easy for us to think of things outside the visible rainbow as just "more colors."  But that isn't an accurate way to describe them.
 
2013-04-22 08:23:42 PM

p the boiler: raygundan: lordargent: there are colors you can't even SEE

Color is a product of the visual system and brain.  If your eyes and brain work, there are no colors you can't see.  There are frequencies you can't see, though.

Color nazi


I have eliminated the blues.
 
2013-04-22 08:27:53 PM

drjekel_mrhyde: Can't you just use snipping tool if you want to steal pictures


I usually take a picture of my monitor with my 35mm camera, go to the Walgreens down the street for one-hour development, bring the photo home, lay it on the scanner and voila! I have the picture digitally!
 
2013-04-22 08:50:48 PM
Ok, so the workaround until we have programs that can handly the format  is to load Facebook in Firefox or Internet Explorer and just save it that way instead of using Chrome or Opera? That's probably easy enough that I can explain it to my parents.
 
2013-04-22 08:52:32 PM
Give me PCX any day. (Perhaps a Tuesday in 1989.)
 
2013-04-22 08:56:34 PM
p the boiler: Color is a product of the visual system and brain. If your eyes and brain work, there are no colors you can't see. There are frequencies you can't see, though.

Well, when you're talking about gamut, you're talking about frequency. And IIRC there was research done on people who could see more frequencies.

As it turns out, they don't just see "blue" they see a different shade of blue that other people can't see (their color discrimination is higher).

Research paper.
"Richer color experience in observers with multiple photopigment opsin genes"

A news articles
http://discovermagazine.com/2012/jul-aug/06-humans-with-super-human- vi sion
http://www.post-gazette.com/stories/news/health/some-women-may-see-1 00 -million-colors-thanks-to-their-genes-450179/

// 3 sets of receptors with ~100 sensitivity levels vs 4 sets of receptors with ~100 sensitivity levels (100^3 vs. 100^4) (~100 = arbitrary chosen sensitivity level).

// but this all takes us back full circle to explaining gamut to non color technical people (they think gamut is that X-Man that throws cards).

upload.wikimedia.org
 
2013-04-22 09:55:14 PM

jonny_q: Why is Firefox holding off on support? I know sometimes their reasons are good, but sometimes they aren't.


Sounds like they were initially skeptical of the whole thing, but now that there's some use of it in the wild Mozilla's now considering adding it.
 
2013-04-22 10:10:19 PM

lordargent: p the boiler: Color is a product of the visual system and brain. If your eyes and brain work, there are no colors you can't see. There are frequencies you can't see, though.

Well, when you're talking about gamut, you're talking about frequency. And IIRC there was research done on people who could see more frequencies.

As it turns out, they don't just see "blue" they see a different shade of blue that other people can't see (their color discrimination is higher).

Research paper.
"Richer color experience in observers with multiple photopigment opsin genes"

A news articles
http://discovermagazine.com/2012/jul-aug/06-humans-with-super-human- vi sion
http://www.post-gazette.com/stories/news/health/some-women-may-see-1 00 -million-colors-thanks-to-their-genes-450179/

// 3 sets of receptors with ~100 sensitivity levels vs 4 sets of receptors with ~100 sensitivity levels (100^3 vs. 100^4) (~100 = arbitrary chosen sensitivity level).

// but this all takes us back full circle to explaining gamut to non color technical people (they think gamut is that X-Man that throws cards).

[upload.wikimedia.org image 537x600]


You replied to the wrong guy, but I think we mostly agree.  You're talking about a fourth photopigment in your post, which is exactly the thing I said *would* make a difference in the visible gamut.

But again, gamut is *not* frequency, and frequency is not color.  The visible gamut is a model produced in your brain.  If we could rip your eyeballs out and replace them with fully artificial ones that had three photoreceptors-- one for x-rays, one for UV, and one for IR... everything would look really screwed-up, but you'd still have the same colors visible to you.  What *triggered* those colors to appear would be entirely different physical phenomena... but color isn't frequency.  Frequencies cause us to perceive colors, but the colors themselves aren't a property of the world around us.

In particular, this sentence is what we need to get sorted out to end up on the same page:

And IIRC there was research done on people who could see more frequencies.

These are the tetrachromat folks I mentioned.  They have a fourth photopigment.  This means they get a four-dimensional model of color-- but in the case of human tetrachromats, they don't actually see any more frequencies.  The extra receptor overlaps the existing receptor ranges almost completely.  Human tetrachromats see more colors but not more frequencies.  On the other hand, if you take a normal trichromatic individual, and replace the natural lens in their eye (which blocks UV) with a synthetic one that allows UV through... they can see more frequencies but not more colors.  The extra range of UV light triggers the blue receptor.

Color isn't frequency.
 
2013-04-22 10:38:12 PM
raygundan: These are the tetrachromat folks I mentioned. They have a fourth photopigment. This means they get a four-dimensional model of color-- but in the case of human tetrachromats, they don't actually see any more frequencies. The extra receptor overlaps the existing receptor ranges almost completely.

The way I understand it, they can see more frequencies outside of the range of what a normal person can see, and as a result, they also see more gradiations in the colors.

IE, a normal viewer wouldn't be able to tell the difference between two shades of blue (to them, it's the same shade), but to a tetra, they are two different shades of blue.

█████
█████
To you and I, those two colors above probably look the same, but to a tetra, they might look like two different shades of blue.
 
2013-04-22 11:20:44 PM
Seriously?

www.spiretech.com

It's free with every copy of Windows. There's no right-click or drag-preventing code that can stop it from snatching any picture on the Internet.
 
2013-04-23 12:17:08 AM

ZeroCorpse: Seriously?

www.spiretech.com

It's free with every copy of Windows. There's no right-click or drag-preventing code that can stop it from snatching any picture on the Internet.


Just don't run with it.
 
2013-04-23 12:34:28 AM

lordargent: raygundan: These are the tetrachromat folks I mentioned. They have a fourth photopigment. This means they get a four-dimensional model of color-- but in the case of human tetrachromats, they don't actually see any more frequencies. The extra receptor overlaps the existing receptor ranges almost completely.

The way I understand it, they can see more frequencies outside of the range of what a normal person can see, and as a result, they also see more gradiations in the colors.

IE, a normal viewer wouldn't be able to tell the difference between two shades of blue (to them, it's the same shade), but to a tetra, they are two different shades of blue.

█████
█████
To you and I, those two colors above probably look the same, but to a tetra, they might look like two different shades of blue.


No additional frequencies in a human tetrachromat.  But they do have a fourth photopigment that overlaps, so they do have the ability to see more colors when looking at the same range of frequencies.
 I know I've said it over and over, but the critical thing here is that frequency isn't color.  Frequencies of light are what the physical world has, and what you would measure with a spectrophotometer.  Color is the model that gets generated by our three-receptor visual system and brain.  It's a pretty lossy model-- a great deal of information is lost.  We can't tell if light is a single-frequency that looks yellow, or a mix of single-frequency light that looks red by itself and single-frequency light that looks green, for example.  Those are the same color, but entirely separate frequencies.


/Note that other animals (like birds) with four-receptor visual systems DO actually have a fourth receptor that expands the frequency range as well as the colorspace.  It's just that in humans, the fourth one overlaps.  More colors, but no new frequencies.
 
2013-04-23 12:59:51 AM
Fark photoshop challenge: WebP
 
2013-04-23 01:00:02 AM

jonny_q: Why is Firefox holding off on support? I know sometimes their reasons are good, but sometimes they aren't.


Because PNG and JPG are fine and google probably wants some money
 
2013-04-23 01:17:00 AM

raygundan: imgod2u: Note the term "color" can be used to mean all spectrum or just visual ones depending on the field of work.

"Color" and "spectrum" (or frequency) are not the same thing.  If you have the human-normal three types of cone cells, but slightly wider spectrum response, you don't see any new colors-- but you DO see a wider range of frequencies.  Let's say it's your blue cone cell sees further into UV than a normal human cone cell, for example-- that doesn't create new colors, but it means things that normal people don't see at all appear blue to you.

Where you might kinda-sorta be right is if a person actually had an extra cone cell type.  There's some indication that a few women are tetrachromats, and have a fourth cone cell.  These people would genuinely have a different color perception using a four-dimensional model to represent the continuous spectral range around them rather than a three-dimensional one.

But that's the critical bit.  Light has frequency.  Our brains assign those frequencies a color based on which of the three sensors the light excites.   But a lot of information is lost-- color is not frequency.  Where it gets mixed up is that a lot of people think of the rainbow as "all the colors."  Obviously, pink's not in there.  Nor is brown.  Or a bunch of other multispectral-only responses our visual system generates.  UV and IR aren't colors, although I can understand why people might call them that in less precise terms-- because we think of the rainbow as the range of colors, it's easy for us to think of things outside the visible rainbow as just "more colors."  But that isn't an accurate way to describe them.


Actually, my point is that the usage of the word "color" isn't nearly as strict as you may think; it's used across all sorts of engineering fields interchangeably with the word "spectrum".
 
2013-04-23 02:25:13 AM

FitzShivering: Fish in a Barrel: From TFA:   "I do graphic design and I find it beyond annoying to have to have a special viewer for this thing, I want my images to be in .jpg. like it was before."

So you're in graphics design, you're downloading images off of FaceBook, you can't cope with a different image format, and you prefer to work in JPG?  Seriously?

I find it amazing how ignorant some graphics folks can be about their medium.  I've had to deal with people generating graphics for me that didn't understand what an alpha channel was, or the difference between raster and vector graphics.  And, of course, there are the folks that say, "it's on the Internet, that means it's public domain."

They are definitely a minority, but I don't understand how they exist at all.

Because they are usually really, really, really cheap.  You can be a huge fark-up for 8 dollars an hour and get away with it if your competitor is charging 40.




And that, in a nutshell, is how outsourcing works.
 
2013-04-23 03:43:40 AM

red5ish: Fark photoshop challenge: WebP


...which are done using GIMP and made so that they are only fully appreciated by individuals with four-receptor visual systems.
 
2013-04-23 01:06:56 PM

imgod2u: raygundan: imgod2u: Note the term "color" can be used to mean all spectrum or just visual ones depending on the field of work.

"Color" and "spectrum" (or frequency) are not the same thing.  If you have the human-normal three types of cone cells, but slightly wider spectrum response, you don't see any new colors-- but you DO see a wider range of frequencies.  Let's say it's your blue cone cell sees further into UV than a normal human cone cell, for example-- that doesn't create new colors, but it means things that normal people don't see at all appear blue to you.

Where you might kinda-sorta be right is if a person actually had an extra cone cell type.  There's some indication that a few women are tetrachromats, and have a fourth cone cell.  These people would genuinely have a different color perception using a four-dimensional model to represent the continuous spectral range around them rather than a three-dimensional one.

But that's the critical bit.  Light has frequency.  Our brains assign those frequencies a color based on which of the three sensors the light excites.   But a lot of information is lost-- color is not frequency.  Where it gets mixed up is that a lot of people think of the rainbow as "all the colors."  Obviously, pink's not in there.  Nor is brown.  Or a bunch of other multispectral-only responses our visual system generates.  UV and IR aren't colors, although I can understand why people might call them that in less precise terms-- because we think of the rainbow as the range of colors, it's easy for us to think of things outside the visible rainbow as just "more colors."  But that isn't an accurate way to describe them.

Actually, my point is that the usage of the word "color" isn't nearly as strict as you may think; it's used across all sorts of engineering fields interchangeably with the word "spectrum".


Fair enough-- I'd call that wrong, but language does what it wants as people bend it to new uses.  Using color and spectrum (or frequency) interchangeably creates all sorts of confusion-- but if your application is really just working with frequencies and not at all concerned with colorspaces, I totally understand how that usage would come to be.
 
2013-04-23 04:46:15 PM

MrEricSir: Sounds like they were initially skeptical of the whole thing, but now that there's some use of it in the wild Mozilla's now considering adding it.


That's good to hear. If it was fear of some one coming out of the patent thicket at the last minute, I would understand. If it's because the originators (Google, whoever) chose GPLv2 instead of GPLv3 or some shiat like that, then this would be stupid.

moothemagiccow: Because PNG and JPG are fine and google probably wants some money


1. No they aren't. PNG is lossless with typically larger sizes than JPG. JPG is lossy. Neither are animated. A single format that can do all 3 with lower bandwidth is good. This is farking 2013, after all.
2. How? Other than the decrease in bandwidth, what does it have to do with Google's money? Are you referring to something specific or just derping?
 
Displayed 48 of 48 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »





Report