Webp download Conversion

[eDaddi]

XF and many Image Optimizer add-ons are forcing WebP, which is ridiculous. We get it can be faster but many end users despise webp because they can't easily download it and work with the images.

I suggest an dropdown on image attachments that allows you to download the attachment in a formant you want. This way we can use webp for the optimization benefits and the user has the option to download as a .jpg if they want.

 

[Forsaken]

XF and many Image Optimizer add-ons are forcing WebP, which is ridiculous. We get it can be faster but many end users despise webp because they can't easily download it and work with the images.

I suggest an dropdown on image attachments that allows you to download the attachment in a formant you want. This way we can use webp for the optimization benefits and the user has the option to download as a .jpg if they want.

Disable image optimization, and do not use add-ons that optimize images if it does not fit your site. Doing what you ask effectively negates the purpose of optimization, so there is no point of having both features.

 

[eDaddi]

Disable image optimization, and do not use add-ons that optimize images if it does not fit your site. Doing what you ask effectively negates the purpose of optimization, so there is no point of having both features.

Maybe if you're dealing with professional photographers looking for original files, but I bet those people have other ways of sharing pics. But for most people that just want to download a file to chop or screw around with you can easily read an image from the filesystem, set the new format and change the header to serve the format the user chooses. XF & add-ons are already going from .jpg -> .webp ... it's easy to reverse for a download. Then you have an optimized surfing experience and a file they can play with if they want

 

[MentaL]

Maybe if you're dealing with professional photographers looking for original files, but I bet those people have other ways of sharing pics. But for most people that just want to download a file to chop or screw around with you can easily read an image from the filesystem, set the new format and change the header to serve the format the user chooses. XF & add-ons are already going from .jpg -> .webp ... it's easy to reverse for a download. Then you have an optimized surfing experience and a file they can play with if they want

In this regard you could just attach the "raw" source image (which will need to be an allowed file extension plus adjustment of attachment sizing) and let the webp be for previewing, assuming it was for photography. In due time, webp gains more support, so will functionality such as editing with local devices.

 

[Chris D]

There are no plans to implement optimization reversal on download.

If your users for some reason find webp files difficult to work with, as mentioned, just turn off image optimization.

The concept might be more compelling if you can express specifically what about webp makes it difficult. They are as easy to download as a JPG or PNG -- it's just a file download. They are supported by the majority of apps. What specifically is the difficulty?

 

[Chromaniac]

One of the reasons I have seen on similar discussion elsewhere is that you cannot make a webp as a wallpaper in Windows for example. Checked and WebP does not seem to be supported at least on Windows 10. I cannot even pick a webp image for account profile on W10. One of my personal annoyance is that some web services like Imgur does not let you upload webp images even though they convert all uploaded images to webp format which is used in certain places. It is kind of crazy how much hate there is for webp online and this is mostly because native support for this decade+ old format is still not available at random places in popular operating systems (Microsoft).

 

[eDaddi]

If your users for some reason find webp files difficult to work with, as mentioned, just turn off image optimization.

I get that, it's common sense. But thats like .... 'we have this cool feature to make your site faster for end users, save space, help pagespeed scores, etc ... but don't use it if your users aren't capable of figuring out how to work with webp. So you get a slow site for your slow users'

The concept might be more compelling if you can express specifically what about webp makes it difficult. They are as easy to download as a JPG or PNG -- it's just a file download. They are supported by the majority of apps. What specifically is the difficulty?

I don't expect anybody using your product or posting on this forum to get it. WebP shouldn't scare us, we all have some degree of tech/web savviness in us. Many of our end users don't, I know a good majority of mine don't. So when they want to download a pic to do whatever it is they want to do, WebP makes it hard for them. Not all websites and mobile apps accept uploads of webp, heck I bet there are tons of non-updated XF installs that still don't allow them.

I don't think that the point is 'what specifically are they trying to do' with it, but that, even thought support has come a long way, it's not there yet for everybody's needs. This doesn't seem like a big task code wise, maybe from a design standpoint of figuring out the best way to show/provide the action ... but it would continue to bridge the gap for the non techies until there is more support. Just me and my members's $.02

 

[eDaddi]

How do you close voting before it's even been up for 24hrs? Doesn't seem like you're wanting to hear what your customers may need from your product.

EDIT: That sounds kind of ... attacky. I was just wondering what the criteria was for deciding to close this or any suggestion so soon.

 

[briansol]

I would also move for this to be re-opened. I think it's a valid suggestion and does have a valid use case.

Perhaps on attachment view, there's a down arrow on the top right (download) and it pops a menu for format (webp, jpg, png, etc) and on click, it processes the image with gd/imagik and sends the header to download the desired image.

 

[Chris D]

We're not currently planning to implement it, but the discussion is still open. I'll move it back, but I'm not sure the votes will be compelling enough to sway our opinion on this.

I've seen @Chromaniac's argument about Windows 10 but, frankly, that's just going to be a case of upgrading to Windows 11 which has been around now for 4 years and this year support for Windows 10 is ending, so we recommend at least planning that upgrade at the earliest opportunity.

The Imgur issue definitely sounds like an Imgur issue - they're clearly capable of working with webp so it's insane they don't allow them to be uploaded.

The issue with uploading to other websites is valid, though not insurmountable for most to navigate.

But ultimately it's a diminishing issue (support will evolve over time, even the number of 2.2 and below sites is diminishing daily) and one that I strongly feel isn't worth the added complexity. It's not quite as simple to code for as you seem to expect.

 

[briansol]

It's ok if it's not on the roadmap. Perhaps, others will show interest and a 3rd party add on ev will see there's interest, yet no official support being planned, and create an addon for the users instead of native functionality.

 

[eDaddi]

It's ok if it's not on the roadmap. Perhaps, others will show interest and a 3rd party add on ev will see there's interest

I would think it would be a popular one. I should have learned how to make XF plugins by now but it's not a difficult bit of PHP code on it's own. In it's simplest form a function like:

$src = imagecreatefromwebp($webpPath);
$jpg = tempnam('/path/to/tempDir/', 'convertedJpg') . '.jpg';

imagejpeg($src, $jpg, 100);

header('Content-Type: image/jpeg');
header('Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="converedJpg.jpg"');
readfile($jpg);

would do the trick. You could (should) go further to make sure the files exists, it can be read, delete temp files, etc etc ... but I assume a lot of that is already in XF's pic editing functions. So I'm sure there is more to add but you get the idea.

 

[Chris D]

Okay if we're going to go there - this doesn't really help.

We load attachments from the attachments route. That returns the image data (which will be in webp). If it didn't return webp then the attachment would be downloaded in a non optimised format, therefore making the entire function useless. You might as well just turn it off.

If you access the image via the lightbox, yes, there's a download button, currently that just downloads the image from the same URL. We don't control that code, that code is in a third party library. Though we might be able to pass a different URL into it (I'm not sure).

We could perhaps append something to the URL, e.g. ?type=jpg and we could have very different code (consider remote file storage, different file types where jpg isn't appropriate, different image processors etc.) that converts the image before downloading it.

Easy, right?

But what about images that are already loaded on the page? If I right click and save as on the image in this thread, it's going to download webp and your users (probably a sheer majority of them) are still going to have problems, we're going to have problems explaining why sometimes things download in webp and sometimes in jpg, you're going to have problems explaining to users why it is like it is.

I can assure you whatever issues we find are not insurmountable. There's maybe a solution there. But please don't post six lines of code and think the issue is simple. Nothing is simple and sometimes I promise you these kinds of things are just not worth anyone's time, the possibility that we have to modify templates, use a different lightbox library, add code that may break add-ons' assumptions, introduce issues with the fairly computationally heavy process of converting an image on the fly and so on.

Turn off image optimization or have a process for explaining to your users how they can do what they want to do, even if it's just pointing them to one of the many websites that will convert the image for them.

 

[eDaddi]

Okay if we're going to go there - this doesn't really help.

My previous post wasn't necessary for XF Devs, more for anybody wanting to make an add-on. I appreciate XF's backend is more complex than that and am in no way trying to be insulting. Just brainstorming a problem for my members.

They have lots of personal preferences when it comes to forums and only when I know they'll be a huge issue do i bring them here. I do think this is bigger issue than the XF team thinks.

That returns the image data (which will be in webp). If it didn't return webp then the attachment would be downloaded in a non optimised format, therefore making the entire function useless

Oh, maybe I'm misunderstanding how XF's new optimization works. I assumed it converted the file and saved it as webp in the filesystem? Is it calling the file, converting and retuning the data in webp on the fly?

But what about images that are already loaded on the page?

Why would there be a mix of webp and jpg attachments with the optimization enabled? Wouldn't all attachments be webp?

But please don't post six lines of code and think the issue is simple. Nothing is simple and sometimes I promise you these kinds of things are just not worth anyone's time, the possibility that we have to modify templates, use a different lightbox library, add code that may break add-ons' assumptions, introduce issues with the fairly computationally heavy process of converting an image on the fly and so on.

I totally get where you're coming from Chris and again, not trying to throw stones. I was a dev for 18yrs, taught programming at college level and now manage dev teams ... I get implementing that within XF is more than what I posted. My point was simply that at it's core, existing XF code aside, the actual conversion and download of an image is easy.

even if it's just pointing them to one of the many websites that will convert the image for them.

Try that from a phone, it's a PIA.

 

[Chris D]

Oh, maybe I'm misunderstanding how XF's new optimization works. I assumed it converted the file and saved it as webp in the filesystem? Is it calling the file, converting and retuning the data in webp on the fly?

No. They are saved as webp.

Why would there be a mix of webp and jpg attachments with the optimization enabled? Wouldn't all attachments be webp?

Yes that’s the point. Every image loaded on the page would be webp. So if you right click and save you would be downloading webp irrespective of anything else because the browser would be downloading the cached version of the image. Which would be webp. And there’d be no code that would be able to convert it to jpg in that case. Potentially possible to do something with the lightbox as I say but the inconsistency would exist between the browser saving behaviour and the lightbox downloading behaviour.

Try that from a phone, it's a PIA.

Just have. Easy.

 

[MySiteGuy]

My previous post wasn't necessary for XF Devs, more for anybody wanting to make an add-on. I appreciate XF's backend is more complex than that and am in no way trying to be insulting. Just brainstorming a problem for my members.

They have lots of personal preferences when it comes to forums and only when I know they'll be a huge issue do i bring them here. I do think this is bigger issue than the XF team thinks.


Oh, maybe I'm misunderstanding how XF's new optimization works. I assumed it converted the file and saved it as webp in the filesystem? Is it calling the file, converting and retuning the data in webp on the fly?


Why would there be a mix of webp and jpg attachments with the optimization enabled? Wouldn't all attachments be webp?


I totally get where you're coming from Chris and again, not trying to throw stones. I was a dev for 18yrs, taught programming at college level and now manage dev teams ... I get implementing that within XF is more than what I posted. My point was simply that at it's core, existing XF code aside, the actual conversion and download of an image is easy.


Try that from a phone, it's a PIA.

There are two choices here to handle how you want it:

1. Store the file in multiple formats, which takes up much more storage space.

2. Convert them on the fly as you suggest, which is not a great idea since it takes CPU resources, especially on pages with many attachments. This is not viable for many in today's hosting environment, where most sites are one shared hosts or limited resource smaller virtual servers. Plus, it will make pagespeed scores take a hit.

 

[frm]

I've seen @Chromaniac's argument about Windows 10 but, frankly, that's just going to be a case of upgrading to Windows 11 which has been around now for 4 years and this year support for Windows 10 is ending, so we recommend at least planning that upgrade at the earliest opportunity.

I'll pay $61/yr for Windows 10 ESUs before upgrading to Windows 11. In fact, I bought this laptop with Windows 11 and spent a greater part of the day trying to get Windows 10 to work on it with finding each necessary Windows 10 compatible driver the components required.

But, I have no issue with this being supported or not. I just am here to show that there are Windows 10 users who refuse to upgrade, and some (not I), might not be privy enough to download a WebP and convert it to make it a background.

My advice would be to just turn off image optimization, because I wouldn't develop anything to convert on the spot, but have no issue if XF wants to implement a "Download as..." button that would convert prior to download.

Alternatively, you could always make an instructional thread that contains a link to all the free image converters online. Here is one of them:
https://www.iloveimg.com/convert-to-jpg/webp-to-jpg

It had no problem converting the dimensions of this (960x1280)
https://xenforo.com/community/media/1000009761-webp.5282/

And took the WebP from 106 KB to 1190 KB.

 

[woody]

I get that, it's common sense. But thats like .... 'we have this cool feature to make your site faster for end users, save space, help pagespeed scores, etc ... but don't use it if your users aren't capable of figuring out how to work with webp. So you get a slow site for your slow users'

Those same users went from leaf springs and filing points to anti-dive calculations and fuel mapping profiles. I haven't updated yet, but my users will figure it out, and a quick/dirty Help section tutorial can easily point them in the right direction.

They complain because it's different