The entire point of webp is compression for the web, it's literally in the name. It compresses much better then jpeg, which is the point of why it was created. All modern image viewers can handle webp just fine.
Sync for Lemmy
๐
Welcome to Sync for Lemmy!
Welcome to the official Sync for Lemmy community.
The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:
Community Rules
1- No advertising or spam.
All types of advertising and spam are restricted in this community.
Community Credits
Artwork and community banner by: @[email protected]
In the telegram app, webp is counted as a 'sticker', which will cause it to be rendered at a fixed scale, and you will be unable to zoom in on it. Stickers in telegram are used as reaction images that can be put into their own folders.
So if I share a webp image in telegram, you pretty much wont be able to read or see what's going on due to the fixed scale.
Oof. I guess that's slightly better than what happens with Facebook Messenger, which is a generic "an error has occurred" dialogue box.
I know what WEBP is, why it is used, and why some instances would prefer to use it. But sharing WEBP to Facebook Messenger does not work, it returns an error.
Inb4 the comments saying you should use signal and whatnot and that facebook/meta is evil
Haha I was sort of anticipating that too. I actually do use Signal, and wish more of my friends / family would too, but I don't have the time nor the energy to try and convince all of them to switch away from Messenger.
Meta IS evil, but they don't have my real name and I try to block as much of their tracking as possible. An unfortunate requisite evil right now if I want to easily keep in contact with people.
For sending as a message attachment, compression is not nearly as needed since the image is only distributed to one or two people and it's only one image, so the webp could be transcoded directly to jpeg to have the same quality and the difference wouldn't be much, I think OPs idea is kinda good