were going on a screaming opossum walk now be a good boy and were both scream at the sun while pissing pure anger.
Yeah no,…I dont speak "fatso"…
muh culture mufugga
take the fresh opossum puss and just inhale it in, it'll be alright
probably over thinking possums
I fucking hate that shit. Does it even save them bandwith?
Beware of trying to get information about webp at Wikipedia, however. The webp related articles there are controlled by a cabal of anti Google fanatics. Those articles are biased and contain unverifiable misinformation.
Marginally, at the expense of destroying the image for any re-use since it forces half the spatial resolution for the color information and leads to massive generation loss artifacts.
Wouldn't it also use more bandwidth and consume more resources on the server side in order to check if the browser is compatible with .webp, then have to compress the image into a .webp, then send that .webp instead of just sending the fucking .jpg that's only 100kb larger and isn't fucked by compression?
We aren't talking about the difference between . FLAC and low bitrate .mp3 here
It's a format that is designed by Google to serve up millions of small thumbnails and preview pictures of content. They know already whether your browser supports it because they track you.
I figure it's Google planning to use it for consoomer web 2.0 shit and bloatware. They aren't just using it for thumbnails. If Google's pushing it it can't be for a good reason. It's probably so they can forcefeed you more ads at a lower cost.
At least there's Bing if you need a search engine that won't try to indoctrinate you.
No one gives a shit, no one except the anti Google fanatics who criticize everything Google is involved with.
Lossy image files are NOT intended to be loaded in image software, modified and then saved back out. That is what lossless image files are for. If you had permission from the image copyright holder to modify his image then it would be simple to obtain the image in lossless format.
Don't forget that webp ALSO has a lossless format too.
>>3641472> They know already whether your browser supports it because they track you.
False. They know because every time your browser requests a webpage it sends a request header that tells the server the type of things the browser accepts:https://www.iplocation.net/http-browser-header
>>3641549>Lossy image files are NOT intended to be loaded in image software, modified and then saved back out.
Nothing says you can't. With high quality JPEGs, the generation loss is negligible over several hundred repeats and it's smaller than the same content in lossless encoding, so everybody's going to use it anyways. Only idiots upload PNGs because "hurrdurr lossless" when it doesn't matter. Meanwhile, the problem with WepP is that it's TOO LOSSY by the forced 4:2:0 subsampling of the VP8 codec instead of 4:2:0, 4:2:2, and 4:4:4 available for JPEG.
The way it works, first you throw away (or not) some of the original image information by subsampling, then you do a DCT transform, then you quantize the DCT coefficients and throw away the really small ones. Only the last part is necessarily lossy with JPEG, whereas WebP's VP8 is always lossy at the first step AND the last step. In other words, WebP compares to the worst quality range of JPEG encoding because there are very few high frequency DCT coefficients to remove after the information has been destroyed by in the first step. That's the sole reason why it gets smaller file sizes.
>Don't forget that webp ALSO has a lossless format too.
Which is ill supported by anything, and nobody uses it. It just generates big files for no practical benefit, and it requires extra trouble to implement because it's actually a whole different format under the same name. The JPEG standard also has one, but nobody uses it, for the same reasons.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lossless_JPEG
Also, the reason why color subsampling with photographic content is often fine for JPEG and WebP - at least when working at the original resolution of the file- is because cameras do not actually have full color resolution. The sensor has what's called a "Bayer filter" which doesn't record all three colors for every pixel, but alternates the color of every pixel in a special pattern, and the camera then averages the data over multiple pixels. In this case it's fine to subsample because the information is mostly redundant anyways.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayer_filter
Once you downscale the image for web publishing, you can't subsample the color information anymore or else it turns into a muddy mess. In JPEG this turns out worse because the compression works in blocks of 8x8 pixels and the artifacts make the image visibly "blocky" and distorted at low quality settings. WebP uses 4x4 pixel blocks so the artifacts it generates are smaller and harder to spot. This is why WebP can generate visually "equal" files at smaller sizes - you have to crank the JPEG quality up higher to get rid of the block artifacts, but then you actually have much more information preserved in the image than the WebP counterpart has.
Then there's the third point that an image compression format should not be lossy and lossless in the same container. Was that old file you saved in WebP lossy or lossless? Do you remember? Is the image you just downloaded lossy or lossless? You can't tell without poking at it with some special software. JPEG and PNG are a good pair because you can't confuse them. One format for one type of use cases.
The only problem is that PNG can also be indexed OR true color and some encoders can use lossy algorithms (similar to subsampling) to improve the file size, and people just don't know how to use these features correctly when they should or should not apply. They end up either raping the image or making it needlessly big for no benefit to anyone.
In other words, unless you know exactly what you're doing, just use JPEG.
They should be screaming at a possum ass
You literally CAN just pick possums up that are in your yard, I wouldn't recommend doing it by the way in the picture tho, but rather by their thick ropelike tail, as they CAN bite, but they usually don't try very hard. Even if they do, you shouldn't even need to get rabies shots (there is a reason why). When they get picked up by the tail, they just hang there by it, and might wobble a little, but they are pretty easy to put in a box with a top and take away somewhere else. DO NOT try this with a raccoon, they are TOTALLY DIFFERENT about this kind of thing and you will quickly wish you hadn't.
well since the pussy is touching the balls, its not gay
Rats are better than opossums
Prove me wrong
Steam is literally the human version of Ratagan, and no one sane would put their dick near Steam.
But mice are nice, prove me wrong.
Protogens are just the new sparkledog versions of sergals
They're literally just dumb sergals with a stupid robot face for zoomers
they got some nasty viruses tho
stealth posting i hope you get botted
i'd rather fuck a virus
not going to lie, i like that
nullos are my bestest fetish
Too much pudge lol.
Fatties are fucking gross.
that isn't even fat, that's just cuddlable.
Lol I was just joking I just wanted to see how many people would start screaming about fatties lol
Is there a clean version of that pic without the caption?
Curious what method was used to remove it
You are your friend?
She scream at own cooch when she period
that right pic would look a lot better if the artist did the tail a bit different. Maybe added a bit of a dock or something
you missed a spot
Those are actually some really nice hind feetpaws.
Sounds like someone else we know.