Is there any free, but not from Microsoft) webp photo viewer?
--
Regards,
Martin Brown

On 12/2/21 2:56 PM, this is what Martin Brown wrote:
> Is there any free, but not from Microsoft) webp photo viewer?
>
Not sure about viewer, but I use https://cloudconvert.com/webp-to-png to convert to PNG and then I can view it as usual.

--
Linux Mint Cinnamon 20.2 64bit, Dell Inspiron 5570 laptop
Quad Core i7-8550U, 16G Memory, 512G SSD, 750G & 1TB HDDs

On 12/2/21 2:56 PM, this is what Martin Brown wrote:
> Is there any free, but not from Microsoft) webp photo viewer?
>
And this https://techviral.net/photo-viewer-to-open-webp-files/#4_XnView says the Xxview will do it for you locally. Xnview is a good image
viewer.

--
Linux Mint Cinnamon 20.2 64bit, Dell Inspiron 5570 laptop
Quad Core i7-8550U, 16G Memory, 512G SSD, 750G & 1TB HDDs

Martin Brown <newspam@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:

> Is there any free, but not from Microsoft) webp photo viewer?

See my reply in the alt.comp.freeware to your same message you
multi-posted there.

"Martin Brown" <'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:sob8dq$1l3q$1@gioia.aioe.org...
| Is there any free, but not from Microsoft) webp photo viewer?
| I've never seen one, but Irfan View includes it in the
list of things it will open.

On 12/2/2021 8:08 PM, Mayayana wrote:
> "Martin Brown" <'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:sob8dq$1l3q$1@gioia.aioe.org...
> | Is there any free, but not from Microsoft) webp photo viewer?
> |
> I've never seen one, but Irfan View includes it in the
> list of things it will open.
>
> IrfanView, requires plugins to open WebP images.

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

If you don't have Irvanview, you are missing a lot. I have been
scanning slides, and would have a significantly greater task without
Irfanview.

The OCR plugin in itself is worth having.

On 2021/12/02 10:8 pm, Mayayana wrote:

> I've never seen one

WebP is a modern image format that provides superior lossless and lossy
compression for images on the web. https://developers.google.com/speed/webp

Sample Image Files in JPEG and WebP and the PNG Source
https://developers.google.com/speed/webp/gallery1

Wikipedia WebP
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WebP
--
"Old pinballers never die, they just flip out."

Martin Brown wrote:
> Is there any free, but not from Microsoft) webp photo viewer?
>
Most web page[webp] files(file type developed by Google) open in a
browser(Chrome, Edge, Firefox).

If in addition to viewing, editing is desired...consider the open source
apps - GIMP or ImageMagick

--
....w¡ñ§±¤ñ

On 12/2/21 9:17 PM, this is what ...w¡ñ§±¤ñ wrote:
> Martin Brown wrote:
>> Is there any free, but not from Microsoft) webp photo viewer?
>>
> Most web page[webp] files(file type developed by Google) open in a browser(Chrome, Edge, Firefox).
>
> If in addition to viewing, editing is desired...consider the open source apps -  GIMP or ImageMagick
>
>
gthumb in linux will view them by default.

--
Linux Mint Cinnamon 20.2 64bit, Dell Inspiron 5570 laptop
Quad Core i7-8550U, 16G Memory, 512G SSD, 750G & 1TB HDDs

"John Robertson" <spam@flippers.com> wrote

| WebP is a modern image format that provides superior lossless and lossy
| compression for images on the web.

That's a contradiction in terms. Superior and lossy. It does
sound interesting, but there's no sense using partially supported
formats when it's not necessary. And image size is hardly an issue
these days. People obsess over getting JPGs as small as possible,
then they bloat out their webpages with 3-4 MB of script:

https://caniuse.com/webp

Maybe in a couple or a few years. But now they're also working
on a new update. Webp2. I still don't even use PNG in general. It
offers little advantage and I can't be sure everyone can see it. I'd
use those formats only once all OSs support them natively.

On 03/12/2021 03:59, Mayayana wrote:
> I'd
> use those formats only once all OSs support them natively.
>
>
Which OS's don't support natively? Give us a list.

"Bodas Naresh" <bodasnaresh051@gmail.com> wrote
| On 03/12/2021 03:59, Mayayana wrote:
| > I'd
| > use those formats only once all OSs support them natively.
| >
| >
| Which OS's don't support natively? Give us a list.
|

Which does? XP doesn't even support PNG. I doubt Vista/Win7
supports webp. And someone here is asking where to get
a viewer for Win10. By support I mean globally recognized and
rendered, like GIF and JPG, without needing special software
or knowledge. 99% of people have no idea what to do when
Windows asks, "What program do you want to open this file with?
We don't know what the hell it is."

BMP is globally recognized
on Windows, but maybe not on Mac and Linux. TIF? That's
complicated. On Windows it's usually a zip-ed BMP. Can Mac
handle that? I don't know. If I'm
putting an image on a webpage or sending it to someone,
I want to have full editing capability and no doubts about
whether the viewer can handle the image without needing to
understand it. So that's basically JPG and GIF. Maybe PNG.
But PNG doesn't usually offer any advantage. It's bigger than
a lightly compressed JPG, so its non-lossiness comes at a
steep price unless you need transparency.

That's why JPG and GIF are web images. That's why
cameras create JPG. They're universally supported and
royalty-free.

These days it's become typical to tell people that they
need to be constantly updating software and if they don't
then it's their problem. I take the old-fashioned approach:
People should be able to see my images and webpages as
widely as possible. I don't make webpages "best viewed in
Chrome 96 at 1024 x 768". I make webpages designed to
be viewed. If a grandma in Ohio or a peasant in Inida is
using Win98, then I'll support that if it doesn't mean sacrificing
anything. And usually it doesn't require sacrificing anything.
I can't see any possible reason to start using webp today
on webpages. Anyone worried that much about the file sizes
on their webpage could probably cut it down greatly without
changing images. As I said, the size of script... as well as CSS
and general HTML bloat... has gone crazy. I don't see any
webpages where people are putting even a tiny bit of effort
into download size economy.

.... And all of that doesn't even get into the ominous idea
of using any Google production as a standard. If Google were
making toilets we'd have to agree to them filming before
we could lift the lid. Their efforts usually have ulterior
motives. There's a current controversy with Google trying
to rule the Internet with their custom webpage coding. There's
the webm format, which Google might use to get a foothold
of control. There are Google-authenticated websites, running
Google maps and Google recaptcha, with Google/Doubleclick
ads. And Google are masters at subverting OSS. Android,
after all, is officially open source. What good does that do anyone
other than advanced Linux OS developers? It's OSS but you
can't stop Google spying... So why let Google call any shots
on anything? Google is already a malefic epidemic.