.webp support in Affinity Suite

[rnmartinez]

I find myself switching to other software, such as gimp, when needing to export a file to webp for web work.

 

I would love if this could be added, at least to Photo. Thanks!

[MRDC]

I am in  agreement.   I'd like webp support too 😀

[Snapseed]

I understand where you are both coming but I absolutely detest Google's malignant and ill-informed decision to bring in yet another unnecessary graphics standard format:

 

 

[Snapseed]

Until such time as Affinity Photo offers the (dreadful Google) webp graphic format, one software option to try out is the basic, cross platform Nomacs image editor that is free to download and use.

The "Save As" function does offer a webp option but you will have to manually add the .webp suffix in the file name box so that it reads Name.jpg.webp.

 

 

[Delphi]

On 4/4/2022 at 6:39 PM, Snapseed said:

I understand where you are both coming but I absolutely detest Google's malignant and ill-informed decision to bring in yet another unnecessary graphics standard format:

Yeah, how do we like to use the "evil" WebP format! How dare we save a .PNG file that is 973KB in size into a 37.1KB file size for use on our websites to make them load faster. The gall!

[Medical Officer Bones]

On 4/4/2022 at 3:39 PM, Snapseed said:

yet another unnecessary graphics standard format:

Untrue. It brings something to the table for web image usage that neither PNG nor JPG supports: a lossy image format with full transparency support. It was sorely needed.

[R_G]

Adding my +1 to this feature request!

Having WepP support within the Affinity Suite and not having to use another application like Gimp whenever it's needed, would be quite helpful indeed.

[Operator]

I would love to have webp export in Photo. I don´t want to have to use GIMP all the time... damn I start liking it. (*just kiddin)

webp is amazing and much better than JPEG ---> it is almost always smaller, has much less "grain/noise" AND has the ability to be transparent! Better on all counts...

 

If this technology (webp) wouldn´t come from google, I guess it would have been adopted more willfullingly.. 🙂 I don´t like Google too (also I don´t like Adobe) BUT working as Webdesigner I had to "resign and realise" that google has some sort of monopoly-power over the "internet-things" and they just decide how the consumer interacts and views the internet.

 

Please, it would be so great... finally only use Affinity Tools to finish a project.

 

 

 

[Zen22]

Some Serif developers said they'd get on WebP support 2 years ago in 1.9. Where is it? WebP is better than both PNG and JPEG and its supported by all major browsers.

[PaulEC]

25 minutes ago, Zen22 said:

WebP is better than both PNG and JPEG

That depends on your opinion and what you are using it for! 😉

[Zen22]

3 hours ago, PaulEC said:

That depends on your opinion and what you are using it for! 😉

What is there to be opinionated about? WebP has better lossy compression than JPEG and better lossless compression than PNG and it supports alpha. That's not a matter of opinion. That's a matter of objective technical superiority. I don't understand why people are go grumpy and opinionated about it. I'm a Mac user so I've already joined Apple's HEIC party, and saved tons of storage space in the process. Image formats are changing. In 2022 it's absolutely a necessity to support next-gen formats for a modern image editor. WebP is ideal because it's open and free. WebP is likely already on many websites you visit every day!

[carl123]

12 hours ago, PaulEC said:

That depends on your opinion and what you are using it for! 😉

 

9 hours ago, Zen22 said:

What is there to be opinionated about?

What is the maximum size of a WebP image (width, height in pixels) compared to a JPG image?

[Pšenda]

I think that creating a new, modern and promising format with such a limitation was a really sophisticated step. It is simply visible that it is and has always been intended for use on the web only.

[PaulEC]

The statement was "WebP is better than both PNG and JPEG", with no qualification. It may be better for some purposes, but not for others. For many uses, such as printed books and photo reproduction, quality is more important than file size. I do think that webP should be supported in the Affinity apps, but, IMHO it cannot replace JPG and PNG for all uses and therefore is not "better" per se. 

 

[PaulEC]

4 hours ago, carl123 said:

What is the maximum size of a WebP image (width, height in pixels) compared to a JPG image?

I suspect that this was a rhetorical question, but for anyone interested:
the maximum size of a webP image is 16,383 x 16,383 pixels,
for a JPG image it is 65,535 × 65,535 pixels,
(PNG doesn't have a maximum size).

[RosomakPL]

Can we get back to the topic of discussion?
Google is pushing the use of webp and whether we like it or not we will need to save files in this format more and more.
I don't buy such powerful software to have to switch to other, competing solutions.

We already got a promise a few years ago that this would be added to Affinity:

Dear devs, what is going on?

[Pšenda]

3 hours ago, RosomakPL said:

Dear devs, what is going on?

Why should it be a development issue? Maybe it was decided that it will not be released until the new version.

[RosomakPL]

Why have they kept this a secret for 2 years?
Did you read the post I quoted?

Most of us here are professionals who need a tool to work. Not a toy that lacks basic features available in most
competing solutions like .webp support or for example free transform.

Therefore, no one will protest adding it in the next version. I will buy the license again. This is not a problem.
I just don't want to wait another years for it

[PaulEC]

4 hours ago, RosomakPL said:

Most of us here are professionals who need a tool to work.

This may be true, but it does not follow that most of us design webpages! (Which IMHO is the only thing webP is good for, – and many web pages seem to manage quite well without it!).

As I've said. I do think that webP should be supported at some point, I just don't think it is as important to most Affinity users, as some users would have us believe! I'm sure that, with all the other requests for additions and improvements, many of which have been around for a long time, supporting webP is not at the top of the most user's lists!

[Zen22]

On 5/26/2022 at 6:31 AM, LondonSquirrel said:

Google uses JPG for YouTube thumbnails. And I don't particularly like being 'pushed' into using something. 

Nobody is pushing anyone to use anything. If you want to spend bandwidth hosting JPEG you can do that. Not that what you've just said has anything to do with WebP support in Affinity. Developers are only more likely to use WebP as time moves forward. The fact is, it fulfills a much needed purpose for web developers who need better compression, or lossy compression with transparency. Web developers do in fact work with pixels. Therefore, a professional photo manipulation software should have WebP support. 

[Zen22]

On 5/26/2022 at 6:47 AM, PaulEC said:

This may be true, but it does not follow that most of us design webpages! (Which IMHO is the only thing webP is good for, – and many web pages seem to manage quite well without it!).

As I've said. I do think that webP should be supported at some point, I just don't think it is as important to most Affinity users, as some users would have us believe! I'm sure that, with all the other requests for additions and improvements, many of which have been around for a long time, supporting webP is not at the top of the most user's lists!

When practically every competing software supports an image format and every operating system supports an image format and every web browser supports an image format perhaps that should be on the top of the list for additions to a photo manipulation application. Perhaps Serif should find inspiration from their peers at Pixelmator and support both HEIC and WebP. When we're talking about true professional applications there isn't much room for excuses in my opinion. You either match the versatility and needs of a professional user or you fall behind. Not a good look for what I once considered the modern disrupter in the industry. Both Photo and Designer give me an impression that Serif is sitting on their laurels when there are still so many missing features. 

[Toomaj]

On 5/23/2022 at 3:49 AM, Zen22 said:

What is there to be opinionated about? WebP has better lossy compression than JPEG and better lossless compression than PNG and it supports alpha. That's not a matter of opinion. That's a matter of objective technical superiority. I don't understand why people are go grumpy and opinionated about it. I'm a Mac user so I've already joined Apple's HEIC party, and saved tons of storage space in the process. Image formats are changing. In 2022 it's absolutely a necessity to support next-gen formats for a modern image editor. WebP is ideal because it's open and free. WebP is likely already on many websites you visit every day!

I completely agree with you. If next-gen media formats are not necessary and we should stick to the prev-gen, then maybe next-gen CPUs and GPUs are also unnecessary, perhaps faster internet and higher qualities of anything is unnecessary. Affinity needs to support next-gen including WebP, I was a little bit disappointed when I realized WebP is not in the export list

Edited June 1, 2022 by Toomaj

[Snapseed]

2 hours ago, Toomaj said:

I completely agree with you. If next-gen media formats are not necessary and we should stick to the prev-gen, then maybe next-gen CPUs and GPUs are also unnecessary, perhaps faster internet and higher qualities of anything is unnecessary. Affinity needs to support next-gen including WebP, I was a little bit disappointed when I realized WebP is not in the export list

Until such time as that capability does arrive in the Affinity software range, Nomacs is your new zero cost friend:

https://nomacs.org/

[Toomaj]

18 minutes ago, Snapseed said:

Until such time as that capability does arrive in the Affinity software range, Nomacs is your new zero cost friend:

https://nomacs.org/

Hi, well, that’s true, nomacs exists too, but it doesn’t seem to be maintained anymore. I usually use ImageMagick or XnConvert instead. I also found Krita an absolutely powerful tool to do almost anything with a photo and it generates WebP.

[Snapseed]

5 hours ago, Toomaj said:

Hi, well, that’s true, nomacs exists too, but it doesn’t seem to be maintained anymore. I usually use ImageMagick or XnConvert instead. I also found Krita an absolutely powerful tool to do almost anything with a photo and it generates WebP.

It's good to hear that you have been able to find some intermediate converting softwares that can help. 🙂