XF 2.2 webp support

[Artonn]

I'm currently trying to use WEBP for a post on my forum, but the images are not showing.

Paludarium - Nahrien - Den afsidesliggende kyst

Lige siden jeg opdagede Frodo sten, har jeg ville bruge det til et projekt.

danskeakvarier.dk

Is webp not supported by xenforo?

 

[digitalpoint]

I just happened to do a Google pagespeed analysis on my XF site and the result for mobile is terrible. The main red mark is the images format. It says if I used WebP format, it will save the loading times 19 seconds

The existing load time of your site is greater than 19 seconds???

 

[Andy.N]

The existing load time of your site is greater than 19 seconds???

On mobile, it says 4.6 seconds.

 

[digitalpoint]

On mobile, it says 4.6 seconds.

Ok, if it take 4.6 seconds as it is, how exactly is it going to be 19 seconds faster with a different image format?

 

[beerForo]

-14.4!
Similar to 88 mph!

 

[Andy.N]

Ok, if it take 4.6 seconds as it is, how exactly is it going to be 19 seconds faster with a different image format?

Yeap, makes no sense to me.
Here is the report if you can take a look and tell me what's going on.

PageSpeed Insights

pagespeed.web.dev

 

[digitalpoint]

Yeap, makes no sense to me.
Here is the report if you can take a look and tell me what's going on.

PageSpeed Insights

pagespeed.web.dev

Ya… I mean, I’m a fan of using WebP, but I’m also aware that using it going to be a negligible difference for most users. Users that might see a noticeable difference is when they are on a very image heavy site and their Internet connectivity is very poor (like on a 3G connection). If bandwidth isn’t your speed bottleneck, it’s not going to be a major change for users.

I can tell you with absolute certainty that if your site takes 4.6 seconds to load, changing the image format will not make it 19 seconds faster (math is still a thing in my universe). Maybe they mean 19ms?

Realistically you probably would be looking at something like 0.01 - 0.05 seconds faster… maybe.

 

[Paul B]

Realistically you probably would be looking at something like 0.01 - 0.05 seconds faster… maybe.

Well, I could do a lot in 0.01 - 0.05 seconds. Me, personally, I could do a lot.


/rocket

 

[Andy.N]

Ya… I mean, I’m a fan of using WebP, but I’m also aware that using it going to be a negligible difference for most users. Users that might see a noticeable difference is when they are on a very image heavy site and their Internet connectivity is very poor (like on a 3G connection). If bandwidth isn’t your speed bottleneck, it’s not going to be a major change for users.

I can tell you with absolute certainty that if your site takes 4.6 seconds to load, changing the image format will not make it 19 seconds faster (math is still a thing in my universe). Maybe they mean 19ms?

Realistically you probably would be looking at something like 0.01 - 0.05 seconds faster… maybe.

Agree. My site is not graphic focus so I try to use images that can be optimized. Is there an online tool that we run images through to get it smaller before using it?

 

[zappaDPJ]

Load time reduction by adopting WebP is pretty insignificant. On the other hand the time lost converting your file because the format is not supported is somewhat more significant.

 

[Chromaniac]

Is there an online tool that we run images through to get it smaller before using it?

I am a big fan of https://squoosh.app but you cannot get your users to use it before sharing images online so it's not really something worth considering. there are addons here on xenforo that can optimize supported format attachments. Eventually when/if XenForo supports WebP, there should be tools available (internal or through addons) that can do the same for existing attachments.

 

[TPerry]

I just happened to do a Google pagespeed analysis on my XF site and the result for mobile is terrible. The main red mark is the images format. It says if I used WebP format, it will save the loading times 19 seconds

In many cases... using an add-on (like @truonglv Image Optimizer) will improve that... it's just one more area where XF itself is failing. WebP is NOT the answer some claim. Not all sites will be served by WebP... but ALL sites would benefit from image optimization being a core part of XF. Granted... some of those shared hosting users may not be able to avail themselves of it, but that happens and they can always move into a better hosting environment if needed.... but there are many that don't suffer that limitation.
I use an add-on for images.... and here is a perfect example of HOW XF could improve itself.


I think a 50% optimization display ability should be WELL noticeable to users (and admins that are paying for the space to store those images) ... but we continue to worry about "how can we develop a new style engine/format" or how we can "benefit developers". The concern of bringing items to the fore that benefit what drives any forum (the actual USERS) takes a back seat it appears.

It remains one more simple example of where XF developers have stepped off the train of what benefits their license holders (and those license holders members) and to what benefits the 3rd party developers. Not everybody has unlimited funds to throw at outside developers.

 

[Artonn]

In many cases... using an add-on (like @truonglv Image Optimizer) will improve that... it's just one more area where XF itself is failing. WebP is NOT the answer some claim. Not all sites will be served by WebP... but ALL sites would benefit from image optimization being a core part of XF. Granted... some of those shared hosting users may not be able to avail themselves of it, but that happens and they can always move into a better hosting environment if needed.... but there are many that don't suffer that limitation.
I use an add-on for images.... and here is a perfect example of HOW XF could improve itself.

View attachment 291128
I think a 50% optimization display ability should be WELL noticeable to users (and admins that are paying for the space to store those images) ... but we continue to worry about "how can we develop a new style engine/format" or how we can "benefit developers". The concern of bringing items to the fore that benefit what drives any forum (the actual USERS) takes a back seat it appears.

It remains one more simple example of where XF developers have stepped off the train of what benefits their license holders (and those license holders members) and to what benefits the 3rd party developers. Not everybody has unlimited funds to throw at outside developers.

What settings did you use for pngquant, gif, webp options?

 

[Alvin63]

Any updates for webp images?

 

[ge66]

Is this what you are looking for?

XF 2.3 Thread 'Image optimization, enhanced image resizing, and more!'

Oct 11, 2023

Image optimization with WebP support​

Arguably, we could have talked about this in our bumper Boosting performance entry but it wasn't quite ready to be shown at that point. (I started working on it this week and I haven't yet mastered the art of time travel).

Initially the scope of our WebP support in XenForo 2.3 was to merely allow users to upload WebP files and have them correctly displayed inline. This would have been a positive change on its own as the format becomes more prevalent across the web, but it doesn't really do much on its own to solve the issue of disk usage...

• Chris D
• Replies: 145
• Forum: Have you seen...?

• 
• 

 

[Alvin63]

Thanks. I have a webp image on my desktop but when I go to upload it to the forum home page it can't see the image.

 

[Chromaniac]

it should work here as webp support is available here. for your own forum website, you would have to wait till you install 2.3 on it. 2.3 is currently undergoing beta testing so it's better to wait for first stable release.

 

[Alvin63]

Thanks. I'm on 2.2.15. Is that the latest?

 

[Chromaniac]

yeah. 2.2.15 is the latest stable build.

2.3 is the one with webp support. it is undergoing beta testing and is not suitable for install on your primary domain.

 

[Hristo Avramov]

I get bigger file size for some images, I tried turning on and off the option for webp. Some images become 300 kb bigger than if I dont use the option. Someone had the same experience?

 

[Chromaniac]

yup. depends upon how compressed the original image is. a photo taken from a phone is going to get smaller in almost all cases. but an optimized jpeg downloaded from the web might get larger. you can try using a higher compression setting for webp in xenforo. but overall, it is a small compromise to get smaller files in majority of the cases.