WebP Image Quality Issues

[NevverSWL]

My browsers seem to be all up to date, but it could be my computer; I've had problems with it within the first few months I bought it. Never again will I buy ANYTHING from Lenovo.

[Pickysaurus]

To clarify, we haven't started serving AVIF images yet. We'll be testing it out next week. 

[lilebonymace]

So all of the old images that got overcompressed are now like that forever? You just irreversibly damaged all existing images on the site lol?

[MrMason]

17 hours ago, lilebonymace said:

So all of the old images that got overcompressed are now like that forever? You just irreversibly damaged all existing images on the site lol?

Nope - we always keep a copy of the original, and if we change anything we rebuild from the original. 

[sakaimjrs]

I just noticed something. I was about to comment what if you allowed us to directly upload avif files so we had the option of having more control over the final output, and it occurred to me I never checked if GIMP had avif support. Well, good news is it has, but by downloading and opening a file I recently uploaded, I realized the image looks radically different in GIMP and Krita than in browsers. Is it just a me problem by messing color profiles or is there more to it?

 

This is how the image in question looks in the gallery from the mod page.:

 

Now inside GIMP, it looks exactly how I expected it to look after compression:

 

Is it just my browser the one messing the image or is there more to it?

[Pickysaurus]

2 hours ago, sakaimjrs said:

I just noticed something. I was about to comment what if you allowed us to directly upload avif files so we had the option of having more control over the final output, and it occurred to me I never checked if GIMP had avif support. Well, good news is it has, but by downloading and opening a file I recently uploaded, I realized the image looks radically different in GIMP and Krita than in browsers. Is it just a me problem by messing color profiles or is there more to it?

 

This is how the image in question looks in the gallery from the mod page.:

 

Now inside GIMP, it looks exactly how I expected it to look after compression:

 

Is it just my browser the one messing the image or is there more to it?

Even if we allow AVIF on upload it's still run though and re-optimised on upload. (I have put a request in to support AVIF and WebP as uploads regardless as it just makes things easier).

I'm not sure if the discrepancy is a browser thing. We only support modern, updated browsers that most of our users have. A list of them can be found here: https://help.nexusmods.com/article/113-troubleshooting-website-issues

I'm not seeing any major differences in images here.

[Everglaid]

Hello, I know most people don't use transparent images but I'd also like to report that they aren't quite... looking right. I had no idea until someone else pointed it out to me because some images were fine to me and broken to others These are all hosted on Nexus within an unpublished page.

 

Spoiler

 

 

Spoiler

Another edit: Is the format also the reason why Discord doesn't embed the main image at the moment?

Edited August 13 by Everglaid
Images filled the entire screen D: + another line

[sakaimjrs]

1 hour ago, Pickysaurus said:

I'm not sure if the discrepancy is a browser thing. We only support modern, updated browsers that most of our users have. A list of them can be found here: https://help.nexusmods.com/article/113-troubleshooting-website-issues

I'm not seeing any major differences in images here.

It could be my machine then. I'm not on my gaming partition right now, so it's possible that some library is messing with how the AVIF are displayed in the browser.

BTW, what I see is that the "Warning" in the image in the gallery is pure red (#ff0000), while it is scarlet-ish (#f92c13) in GIMP. During actual gameplay, it looks the way the AVIF file looks in GIMP. But it makes sense it's my system and I don't want to derail the topic.

[megaman2k]

On 8/1/2024 at 6:41 AM, MrMason said:

We're still working on this, new images from the last few days are being served at wepb at 90% quality to make sure the quality is there. The problem with this is that the increase in bandwidth and cache this causes is around 10x what it costs at 75% quality. This also means that loading times are 10x longer!

We've had an idea to try and use AVIF instead of webp, so we're just testing that out, and it's looking pretty promising for static images.
We're looking at something like 75% quality on AVIF which is as good as, or better then, 90% quality at webp whilst also being smaller in file size.

There's still some more testing to do, and we won't make any sweeping changes before the weekend.

 

Is this effort still ongoing? Or is the implicit suggestion that we replace existing images so they'll be rendered at 90% quality since old images are served at low quality?

[Pickysaurus]

10 hours ago, megaman2k said:

Is this effort still ongoing? Or is the implicit suggestion that we replace existing images so they'll be rendered at 90% quality since old images are served at low quality?

We've reverted to WebP 90% quality for now, but we will continue testing AVIF at some point in the next few weeks (the developers working on this are on annual leave).