webp and/or HEIF support?

[Fandyus]

Every time I make a post, I die inside a little bit when I have to massively crush the fidelity of my images to get them to the preferred size. I get that we need to save space, but there are definitely better ways to do it than jpeg. webp for example, has much more visual fidelity at the same size, I'm not sure about HEIF but I know that it is used as a compression algorithm by some smartphones, it could possibly find a use on here as well.

 

Jpeg is an outdated technology at this point. I don't want to be preachy but enabling webp use would be a win for everyone. The images would be smaller and we would all get to enjoy better detail. Just saying.

 

HEIF efficiency https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Efficiency_Image_File_Format#/media/File:Comparison_between_JPEG,_JPEG_2000,_JPEG_XR_and_HEIF.png

webp efficiency https://insanelab.com/blog/web-development/webp-web-design-vs-jpeg-gif-png/

[nfoto]

If people reduce the pixel dimensions, not the level of jpg compression, we all would benefit.  Recently I've seen massively bloated images being posted and compression has to be low in order to get below the maximum allowed file size (in bytes). That is the wrong approach.

 

As to allowing new file formats, that is up to the forum software and the admins. I haven't investigated what options are available to us. Perhaps Andrea can take this in her stride?

[photoni]

@FandyusUnfortunately Capture One 21 and Photoshop CS6 (and the previous ones I bought) don't support these new formats,

so I can't try them and they don't interest me as archiving.
Gaining 25% of a 300KB file is ridiculous if it complicates dissemination and viewing.
.
My logic is that it is better to show a jpeg 2000x2000 pixel quality 3 ... than 1000x1000 pixel quality 10
it's my logic, not a religion.
.
P.S. I archive the Raw + the working image in PSD format on layers (even 10 or 15) to the customer I deliver the original Jpeg quality 10
If the agency asks me for the original file, I deliver an 8-bit TIFF with a level taken from my PSD, never the Raw.

[photoni]

@Andrea B. there is a mystery to this site
because the same file weighs 269 KB before being posted
and after, once saved it weighs more than double ... 640 KB

 

 

 

[Fandyus]

40 minutes ago, nfoto said:

If people reduce the pixel dimensions, not the level of jpg compression, we all would benefit.  Recently I've seen massively bloated images being posted and compression has to be low in order to get below the maximum allowed file size (in bytes). That is the wrong approach.

 

As to allowing new file formats, that is up to the forum software and the admins. I haven't investigated what options are available to us. Perhaps Andrea can take this in her stride?

I don't want to be rude but as someone who uses a 4k screen, the images are already really small for me at circa 1000x700 and the strong jpeg compression makes it even worse. I still get why it's necessary, but allowing for webp would let people post images even larger than said size while still keeping them at around 120kb and they wouldn't have the terrible jagged color distortion that jpegs have.

[Fandyus]

11 minutes ago, photoni said:

@FandyusUnfortunately Capture One 21 and Photoshop CS6 (and the previous ones I bought) don't support these new formats,

so I can't try them and they don't interest me as archiving.
Gaining 25% of a 300KB file is ridiculous if it complicates dissemination and viewing.
.
My logic is that it is better to show a jpeg 2000x2000 pixel quality 3 ... than 1000x1000 pixel quality 10
it's my logic, not a religion.
.
P.S. I archive the Raw + the working image in PSD format on layers (even 10 or 15) to the customer I deliver the original Jpeg quality 10
If the agency asks me for the original file, I deliver an 8-bit TIFF with a level taken from my PSD, never the Raw.

I always use the service Squoosh to resize and compress my images before I upload them here. My editors of choice also don't support webp so I store my files in jpeg. But for your own sake, I hope you store your files locally in a higher quality than is allowed to upload here and compress them down when you decide to post. Squoosh is great for that and it has many compression types available.

https://squoosh.app/

[dabateman]

I use the free Irfan view to resize. It also seems to read and write Webp. I haven't tested anything other than jpeg

 

https://www.irfanview.com/plugins.htm

[Andy Perrin]

I don’t think my browser (Safari) supports webp. Nor the version on my iPhone. HEIF is supported however, and I would be interested in that as an option. 
 

There is something to the argument that JPEG has become badly dated and we can do better now. 
 

Locally I use TIFF, but I only keep final versions in TIFF. 

[nfoto]

3 hours ago, Fandyus said:

I don't want to be rude but as someone who uses a 4k screen, the images are already really small for me at circa 1000x700 and the strong jpeg compression makes it even worse. I still get why it's necessary, but allowing for webp would let people post images even larger than said size while still keeping them at around 120kb and they wouldn't have the terrible jagged color distortion that jpegs have.

I typically post images with 2000pix on the long axis and size 2-4MB. They are similar to my archival jpgs apart from being in sRGB.  Besides the archival jpgs, there will be a full-resolution PSD or TIF 16-bit, plus the RAW file and any required set of instructions to get the final file. The database links all together as a single entity.

 

120kb file? no wonder you think they look awful on your monitor.

[Andy Perrin]

Nfoto, 1200px horizontally and JPEG level 8 is more typical of what I use, and I think(?) I saw that Andrea had put in the stickies back when I joined the forum? That usually is around 300-400k for me. 
 

ETA: yes, here are the guidelines:

https://www.ultravioletphotography.com/content/index.php?/topic/1321-publishing-guidelines-upload-file-size-and-pixel-dimensions/

Regardless of what is stated there, I think tech has moved on, as is its wont, and it’s time to revisit this issue. 

[Guest]

Does anyone recall that period of bitmap to vector converters using fractals?

[Fandyus]

3 hours ago, nfoto said:

I typically post images with 2000pix on the long axis and size 2-4MB. They are similar to my archival jpgs apart from being in sRGB.  Besides the archival jpgs, there will be a full-resolution PSD or TIF 16-bit, plus the RAW file and any required set of instructions to get the final file. The database links all together as a single entity.

 

120kb file? no wonder you think they look awful on your monitor.

You yourself have told me to keep the files in this size.

Edit: it's in the guidelines too somewhat. But my images don't matter to me so much as the other images posted, I can always see my originals.

[nfoto]

1-2MB yes, that's OK. 120kb? never.

[photoni]

6 hours ago, Andy Perrin said:

Nfoto, 1200px horizontally and JPEG level 8 is more typical of what I use, and I think(?) I saw that Andrea had put in the stickies back when I joined the forum? That usually is around 300-400k for me. 
 

ETA: yes, here are the guidelines:

https://www.ultravioletphotography.com/content/index.php?/topic/1321-publishing-guidelines-upload-file-size-and-pixel-dimensions/

Regardless of what is stated there, I think tech has moved on, as is its wont, and it’s time to revisit this issue. 

 

I don't want to be a professor
that's something one of Adobe's consultants taught me in 1994
the optimal compression ratio depends on the final use and the type of image
If the image will be archived or retouched + copied + converted better the Tiff or a PSD ... or to save weight a Jpeg at maximum quality
if you need it for the web "to show" a low quality Jpeg better
.
Then a lot depends on the subject
In the example of Andrea who has a very complex structure, there will be less difference in weight and quality if you compress high or low
If, on the other hand, the subject is with few details and large and soft shades like a sunset, the differences will be dramatic
it will be the opposite of before, if you compress high or low
there will be a lot of difference in weight and quality ... the shades will be very soft (maximum Q) or very jagged and pixelated (low Q)

 

Regarding dimensions and copyright ©
I prefer not to give away the works :-))) so I publish photos with Exif with © and never higher than 1500 pixels long side and low quality (in photoshop Q 3 = 3/12)

 

another thing @nfoto  @Andrea B. explain to me the mystery of the photos posted on this site that magically multiply in weight

[nfoto]

What happens if you download such a file from the UVP site, then re-upload it? still increasing in reported size? That might be an alternate approach to re-sizing a photo if you haven't got Photoshop....

[photoni]

original before being uploaded weighs 39 KB

 

if I download the original it weighs 69 KB

 

and the quality looks the same

 

 

 

[nfoto]

Have you tried layering the files in PS to see if they are similar on a pixel level?

[photoni]

no, files grow not shrink try it too, if you enter 100 it becomes 200 or more if you download the 200 file and put it back it weighs about

 

14 minutes ago, nfoto said:

Have you tried layering the files in PS to see if they are similar on a pixel level?

here is a proof, the original and the downloaded one are identical

the second weighs more than double

I can imagine that the site does not automatically save the original but a copy with higher compression than mine

 

[photoni]

one more test with tiff original 451 KB

 

_DSC4714crop_.tif

 

PNG 152 KB

 

 

 

Jpeg Q 12/12 = 111 KB

 

 

 

Jpeg Q 3/12 =  40 KB

 

 

 

 

[nfoto]

Andrea, being the admin-in-chief, has to weigh in and respond. Meanwhile I just urge our members to think before they post images. We don't need super-sized 10-15MB files posted in the threads. UVP is not a general gallery site. Keep pixel dimension up to 2000 on the major axis and overall file size up to approx. 2MB and your images will show just fine. Do remember to alter colour space to sRGB to give less surprises for the viewers, and keep in mind a 2000pix file will print nicely in A4 size.

 

I'll lock the thread now and have Andrea re-open it when she returns.

[Andrea B.]

It seems to be time for me to review the file size and pixel dimension guidelines.

I'm on it!! Might take a couple of days though.

 

I retired the old guidelines for now.

 

Kindly note -- and I must have written this at least 50 times before --

I do NOT pay for space. I pay for traffic (hits).

 

The primary reason we must resize our files is for

• faster load times, and
• good viewing within the browser & forum-software interface

So please let me go play around and return with some facts, OK?

This will include checking with Invision about photo file formats.

 

I will start a topic somewhere which is public so you can see what I discover as I go along. However, I will probably suppress comments until I am finished so that I don't distract myself trying to work and talk at the same time. (....laughing....)

 

Here is a screenshot from Site5's main page.

Please read the sentence under the blue box which mentions Unmetered Disk Space.

 

 

 

[Fandyus]

2 hours ago, Andrea B. said:

It seems to be time for me to review the file size and pixel dimension guidelines.

I'm on it!! Might take a couple of days though.

 

I retired the old guidelines for now.

 

Kindly note -- and I must have written this at least 50 times before --

I do NOT pay for space. I pay for traffic (hits).

 

The primary reason we must resize our files is for

• faster load times, and
• good viewing within the browser & forum-software interface

So please let me go play around and return with some facts, OK?

This will include checking with Invision about photo file formats.

 

I will start a topic somewhere which is public so you can see what I discover as I go along. However, I will probably suppress comments until I am finished so that I don't distract myself trying to work and talk at the same time. (....laughing....)

 

Here is a screenshot from Site5's main page.

Please read the sentence under the blue box which mentions Unmetered Disk Space.

 

 

 

Thanks a lot, Andrea! I hope they allow for the improved formats. The less I have to see jpeg artifacts the happier I'll be :D

 

[Andrea B.]

I'm just not seeing any JPG artifacts in my current experiments?

 

Go here for the Investigation:

https://www.ultravioletphotography.com/content/index.php?/topic/5149-investigation-best-upload-file-size-and-pixel-dimensions/&do=getNewComment

 

[Andrea B.]

.....the maximum allowed file size (in bytes)

 

FACT:  There is not a maximum allowed file size here on UVP.

[Fandyus]

4 hours ago, Andrea B. said:

I'm just not seeing any JPG artifacts in my current experiments?

 

Go here for the Investigation:

https://www.ultravioletphotography.com/content/index.php?/topic/5149-investigation-best-upload-file-size-and-pixel-dimensions/&do=getNewComment

 

I was talking about potentially being able to use webp.