Jump to content
Helmar

New export file formats (JPEG 2000, JPEG XR, and WebP)

Recommended Posts

I'll upvote this for Affinity Photo and Designer. Especially since Photoshop and Illustrator don't support it natively and the extension for it is very flacky. This is a chance to out shine them!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All the above formats have been around for many years and there are lots of reasong why companies like Adobe do not generally support them so dont get caught up in google hype

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/7/2019 at 12:30 PM, chrisbst said:

All the above formats have been around for many years and there are lots of reasong why companies like Adobe do not generally support them so dont get caught up in google hype

 

It's no "hype"! It makes my website much faster saving 25-50% of original jpg size.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Fixx said:

Safari does not support JPEG XR or WebP. You should use supported file formats.

No. We wanna use it NOW! For browsers (Chrome, Edge, Firefox) WHO support it.

We don't want to way until Apple wakes up and don't BLOCKS WebP anymore...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Andy Somerfield said:

I'm waiting to see if anyone ends up caring about WEBP

I’m sure there are many users who would like to see WebP support, but I wouldn’t be surprised to learn that they’re outnumbered by those who want support for 1-bit BMP or transparent TGA export.


Alfred online2long.gif
Affinity Designer/Photo/Publisher for Windows • Windows 10 Home (4th gen Core i3 CPU)
Affinity Photo for iPad 1.8.4.186 • Designer for iPad 1.8.4.4 • iPadOS 13.7 (iPad Air 2)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Love WebP and PNG for game development. I use WebP mainly for lossy images which also require alpha transparency to vastly reduce the file size footprint.

And in my opinion not supporting WebP is a bit silly. High traffic websites are converting more and more to the use of WebP instead of jpg, for the simple reason of reducing traffic bandwidth. WebP is out there, it is used, and it ought to be supported by an image editor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

WebP is google backed and initially developed I believe. Google controls what we all do on the web if we are concerned about getting our websites seen.

Please add this export module to Designer and Photo as it is essential to anyone that is competitive in the Google SERP ranking environment (which should be anyone with a website).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I am new to AP, I'm still working my way through its functions and capabilities. When I saw that it (AP) does not have the ability to export to WebP, I performed a Google search looking for the reason. After reading a couple of threads on this forum I see a lot of passion for adding the capability, but that passion is being met with a lot of indifference and misinformation in some of the responses.

For example, from the Affinity Photo Lead: and I'm waiting to see if anyone ends up caring about WEBP..

I must say that statement does not exemplify an understanding of web page design and construction.  Allow me to put this subject in perspective for you. 

1. WebP offers approximately 25-34% smaller file sizes in comparison to JPEG. (https://developers.google.com/speed/webp/docs/webp_study)

2. Given that images account for 51% of the content (in total page size) on a typical web page (https://www.keycdn.com/blog/image-cdn), a reduction of that magnitude is a significant factor both on a micro and macro scale.

3. It is a fact that ~90% of all searches are performed through Google (https://www.statista.com/statistics/216573/worldwide-market-share-of-search-engines/). Therefore, the necessity of appearing on the front page of an organic Google search is critical to the huge majority of websites.

4. Page speed scores are a vital component of SEO. The better the SEO score, the higher a website appears in SER. It then follows that a page with a smaller footprint will otherwise load more quickly and the faster a page will load the higher it will rank. (https://gtmetrix.com/)  (https://developers.google.com/speed/pagespeed/insights/)

5. Google decrees the SEO rules and guidelines. I don't necessarily agree with or even like how they've dictated policy, but they have the market share and we have to live with it. So, if they write the rules and build the hoops, one either jumps through those hoops or is left in a detrimental position.

6. The argument that Apple Safari doesn't support WebP, therefore it (WebP) must not be very popular or some fringe property is weak at best. Chrome currently has 60+% market share and Safari ~15%. Although the other browsers have small numbers, they support WebP which results in only a ~15% share of browser traffic that doesn't. A good designer/developer will include both formats as options when constructing a page, but it would be nice if Apple stopped their snobbery and went with the most efficient solution. (https://gs.statcounter.com/browser-market-share)

7. Why the reluctance to change? Old formats, codecs, standards have come and gone. Some hang around because nothing better has been developed (TIFF, maybe). Others are not let go simply because it's what we're comfortable using. There are undoubtedly various other reasons for why adoption is sometimes slow; however, from a technical point of view, there is substantial evidence that WebP is superior to both JPEG and PNG (just do a Google search) for both the web and printing. In my opinion, it's time to move on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry to be a bit snarky here ... my 2¢ (from an old man shaking his fist at the clouds).

1 hour ago, popster said:

(just do a Google search)

about a Google product.

Use our stuff or be left out of all the search results.

I just do not trust Google, they are not our friends.


MacBook Pro (13-inch, Mid 2012) Mac OS 10.12.6 || Mac Pro (Late 2013) Mac OS 10.14.6

Affinity Designer 1.8.4 | Affinity Photo 1.8.4 | Affinity Publisher 1.8.4 | Affinity Designer Beta 1.9.0.2 | Affinity Photo Beta 1.9.0.199 | Affinity Publisher Beta 1.9.0.742

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Old Bruce said:

Sorry to be a bit snarky here ... my 2¢ (from an old man shaking his fist at the clouds).

about a Google product.

Use our stuff or be left out of all the search results.

I just do not trust Google, they are not our friends.

I do not necessarily disagree (says another old man), but I build sites for clients who expect results. WebP is a simply a tool that gets the job done a little better than some other tools.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Old Bruce said:

Sorry to be a bit snarky here ... my 2¢ (from an old man shaking his fist at the clouds).

about a Google product.

Use our stuff or be left out of all the search results.

I just do not trust Google, they are not our friends.

Bruce, this is totally OT here, but I just wanted to give you the chance to post your 3000th post here on this forum. :-)

At the same time I would love to see new file formats added to the Affinity Range, and yes, even though Google is not our friend and does do evil, as long as the majority uses it in one or another way, it's the piper to whose tune we play.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Helmar said:

Bruce, this is totally OT here, but I just wanted to give you the chance to post your 3000th post here on this forum. :-)

At the same time I would love to see new file formats added to the Affinity Range, and yes, even though Google is not our friend and does do evil, as long as the majority uses it in one or another way, it's the piper to whose tune we play.

Thanks, I must be more long winded and verbose than I think I am. [smiley-face emoticon]

Play or Pay the piper?


MacBook Pro (13-inch, Mid 2012) Mac OS 10.12.6 || Mac Pro (Late 2013) Mac OS 10.14.6

Affinity Designer 1.8.4 | Affinity Photo 1.8.4 | Affinity Publisher 1.8.4 | Affinity Designer Beta 1.9.0.2 | Affinity Photo Beta 1.9.0.199 | Affinity Publisher Beta 1.9.0.742

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Old Bruce said:

Thanks, I must be more long winded and verbose than I think I am. [smiley-face emoticon]

Play or Pay the piper?

You did it! Congratulations! 

Regarding Google, it's a trade(-off). We get stuff for free while they have to pay for what they are offering us, so they (have to) get it back by some other means. 

As an aside, I read an interesting product rating at Pixelmator (Apple App Store).  A German user said that Affinity Photo has been "treading water" for the past years, and that Pixelmator offers much more innovation (including support of Color Fonts). That's why he went for and recommended Pixelmator over Affinity Photo. This may tie in nicely with the issue we're having here regarding supported file formats.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems that there is little viable argument to ignore webP if Google places favoratism on it in regards to our client's end products. Additionally,  the end product/image quality from webP is really good. So regardless of if you like Google or not, webP is an opportunity for Affinity to stay current with its user's requirements (at least those needing to display their images on web browsers and provide SEO for their clients).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/23/2019 at 1:10 PM, Andy Somerfield said:

if anyone ends up caring about WEBP..

Yes, people care about WebP.  Not familiar enough with JPEG XR to comment, but while there are existing JPEG 2000 images out there and import support would be nice, I do agree that export support for JPEG 2000 is something most people could easily live without.  For everyone else, there is always GraphicConverter...  and ImageMagick.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Burndog said:

JPEG XR seems useless unless you're on a Microsoft box:

You seem to be making the assumption that the entire world revolves around the web...

That said I just checked and this format does appear to be supported only by M$ browsers, one video game (using it for its textures), and a handful of photo editors/viewers.

It has been around for at least a decade and does not seem to have caught on, so I think too this one could be sidelined for the time being.

I also came across an article indicating that someone tested this and determined that using JPEG XR slowed down page rendering in the M$ browsers more than the reduced size reduced the download time, so their recommendation was to never use it there either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, fde101 said:

You seem to be making the assumption that the entire world revolves around the web...

True, but in the context of this discussion we are talking about "Google Pagespeed" which is related to the web.
 

Does the Affinity development team ever weigh in on these discussions? It would be of interest what the difficulties are in implementing webP either natively or as a plugin. For instance, is the format propietary? Is there a licensing fee from Google or?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Burndog said:

Does the Affinity development team ever weigh in on these discussions?

It's very rare for Serif to participate in discussions in the Feature Requests forum.


-- Walt

Windows 10 Home, version 2004 (19041.388),
   Desktop: 16GB memory, Intel Core i7-6700K @ 4.00GHz, GeForce GTX 970
   Laptop:  8GB memory, Intel Core i7-3625QM @ 2.30GHz, Intel HD Graphics 4000 or NVIDIA GeForce GT 630M
Affinity Photo 1.8.5.703 and 1.9.0.815 Beta   / Affinity Designer 1.8.5.703 and 1.9.0.815 Beta  / Affinity Publisher 1.8.5.703 and 1.9.0.798 Beta.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Burndog said:

in the context of this discussion we are talking about "Google Pagespeed"

But in doing so you are discussing functionality that transcends that use case.  Import/export is needed for more than just the web, so while it may have been brought up with that focus in mind, the developers will need to consider other use cases when evaluating changes to functionality that impacts everyone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As far as I'm aware, there are no licensing fees for WebP's use. It's an open source project and Google has provided the API's. Also, I don't think implementing WebP would involve a major update to AP. The current Photoshop plugin is available for free on Github. It doesn't work in AP (or at least I've not been able to make it work), but maybe it wouldn't be a very difficult rewrite for someone who knows their stuff.

And I would be remiss if I failed to mention that there are a few places one can have a jpg/png/gif/ ---> WebP conversion made. It's not the end of the world if Serif chooses not to officially add the capability, but it would save time. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Burndog said:

It would be of interest what the difficulties are in implementing webP either natively or as a plugin. For instance, is the format propietary? Is there a licensing fee from Google or?

Implementation specifics do depend on own custom implementations versus the Google reference implementation. Further how a specific software reads/writes out it's data streams, meaning here, it might be easier or more work to adapt a specific other third party file format into the own software pooling depending on the own underlayed architecture structure.

I think the format is actually still proprietary, since AFAIK it's not already common standardized. - The webp code license is probably Apache 2.0 licensed, see here on the page bottoms:


☛ Affinity Designer 1.8.3 ◆ Affinity Photo 1.8.3 ◆ OSX El Capitan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Please note the Annual Company Closure section in the Terms of Use. These are the Terms of Use you will be asked to agree to if you join the forum. | Privacy Policy | Guidelines | We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.