is it a formatting step that an image goes through when uploaded? I’m tired of converting image after image back into jpg, so if there’s like a step I can take to avoid it being a webp, it would help to know

  • harmonea@kbin.social
    44·
    1 year ago

    if there’s like a step I can take to avoid it being a webp

    Formats are chosen by the uploaders and hosts, not the end user.

    For easy conversion of images from the web, I recommend the FF addon Save webP as PNG or JPEG. Anytime you open an image in its own tab, it pops up with a menu that gives you a quick button to choose the format you’d like to save it in.

    • IphtashuFitz@lemmy.worldEnglish
      5·
      1 year ago

      In some cases it’s chosen by a third party.

      My employer uses Akamai for CDN, security, etc. One of the optional services they offer is called Image and Video manager (IVM). One of the things IVM does is analyze image files and converts them to multiple target formats based on how you set it up.

      Suppose you have an image on your website that is a 1000x1000 pixel PNG file that’s 500k in size. The first time a client fetches it Akamai will serve it as-is but will also hand off its URL to an image processing server. That server will analyze the image, and based on how you configure it, might create multiple JPEG & WEBP formats that are 250x250, 500x500, and 750x750 in size, as well as 1000x1000. The new images are highly optimized without impacting the perceptual quality, and all smaller than the original images size.

      Once these images are created Akamai adds them into their CDN cache alongside the original image. Now when a client requests the original PNG file they may actually serve one of the other versions based on the browser being used and device characteristics like viewport size, etc. But it’s all 100% transparent to the end user.

      https://www.akamai.com/products/image-and-video-manager

      • harmonea@kbin.social
        4·
        1 year ago

        You’re not wrong of course, but I really need people to understand that this level of detail is not what a top-level reply to a lower-end technical question is aiming for. Maybe this will be helpful to someone, but I already knew it and didn’t need it sent to me, and it’s going to go above OP’s head. For the average end user, this is abstracted somewhere in the “host stuff” layer, and that’s fine.

      • harmonea@kbin.social
        572·
        1 year ago

        Yeah, doing that does absolutely nothing. Your image viewer still reads it as the webp it is, and it knows to do so seamlessly because it’s reading the file header (the first few bytes of the file) instead of the file extension.

        For an analogy, you’re basically just putting a wig on it and pretending it’s your girlfriend from the next school over when everyone in the room knows it’s your skeezy neighbor and is just humoring you.

          • NullPointerException@lemm.ee
            6·
            1 year ago

            fair but “it” here is pretty vague. my guess is that, in your case, whatever part of “it” that processes the image handles webp files just fine but for some reason the devs made “it” reject file extensions that don’t match “.jpeg”, “.png”, “.whatever_else” for some reason before the file gets handled further.