testing.

test

55 minutes ago, maddog107 said:

Testing 123.

☠️

10 minutes ago, Matt! said:

☠️

Good thing I have a tesla :D

Thats the gas around me :|

2 hours ago, maddog107 said:

Test 234

Looks like sunny Cal.

3 hours ago, maddog107 said:

Good thing I have a tesla :D

Thats the gas around me :|

Certainly a W in this economy.

Edited Sunday at 10:29 PM1 day by Matt!

Anyone having issues uploading content? I'm getting "Sorry, an unknown server error occurred when uploading this file."

test

16 minutes ago, TheDude2k said:

Anyone having issues uploading content? I'm getting "Sorry, an unknown server error occurred when uploading this file."

Sorry I am doing a ton of stuff in the background and i messed up some permissions. Shoudl work now.

1 minute ago, maddog107 said:

Sorry I am doing a ton of stuff in the background and i messed up some permissions. Shoudl work now.

Works again. Thanks for the quick fix!

Can someone confirm that indeed:

All new picture uploads are now converted to WEBP, with the filename changed to .webp extension?

Even few-day-old pictures are now served as WEBP, irrespective of original upload format and filename?

... I'm not too happy with these changes.

27 minutes ago, zorzabosti said:

Can someone confirm that indeed:

All new picture uploads are now converted to WEBP, with the filename changed to .webp extension?

Even few-day-old pictures are now served as WEBP, irrespective of original upload format and filename?

... I'm not too happy with these changes.

I'm seeing the same thing with my uploads and also prefer the original upload format as well (jpg). Adding @maddog107 for awareness and to confirm if webp is by design or should still remain the original uploaded format.

45 minutes ago, TheDude2k said:

I'm seeing the same thing with my uploads and also prefer the original upload format as well (jpg). Adding @maddog107 for awareness and to confirm if webp is by design or should still remain the original uploaded format.

1 hour ago, zorzabosti said:

Can someone confirm that indeed:

All new picture uploads are now converted to WEBP, with the filename changed to .webp extension?

Even few-day-old pictures are now served as WEBP, irrespective of original upload format and filename?

... I'm not too happy with these changes.

Yes we will be switching to webp/avif going forward. My bandwidth bill is rediculous these days and we get penalized by google for having a slow website because it takes so long to load all the jpegs.

Ill send you my backend testing site I created, for your eyes only.

Also I am gonna be leaning on cloudflare more which converts them to webp anyways. So you would never really see the jpeg.

3 minutes ago, maddog107 said:

Yes we will be switching to webp/avif going forward. My bandwidth bill is rediculous these days and we get penalized by google for having a slow website because it takes so long to load all the jpegs.

Ill send you my backend testing site I created, for your eyes only.

Also I am gonna be leaning on cloudflare more which converts them to webp anyways. So you would never really see the jpeg.

Is there a way to have the thumbnails as webp/avif but keeps the target source still linked to jpg. Would that resolve the slow page loads while still having access to the original uploaded format?

1 minute ago, TheDude2k said:

Is there a way to have the thumbnails as webp/avif but keeps the target source still linked to jpg. Would that resolve the slow page loads while still having access to the original uploaded format?

Doesnt solve my bandwidth issue (or storage issue). Why do you need jpgs? I am setting the quality high enough where its virtually indistinguishable for most images. And most modern sites these days have moved to webp a long time ago and even more are moving to AVIF. Your phones have moved to heic/heif for years now 2017. We are still using jpeg from 1992!

1 minute ago, maddog107 said:

Doesnt solve my bandwidth issue (or storage issue). Why do you need jpgs? I am setting the quality high enough where its virtually indistinguishable for most images. And most modern sites these days have moved to webp a long time ago and even more are moving to AVIF. Your phones have moved to heic/heif for years now 2017. We are still using jpeg from 1992!

I'm just old school and like to download original source format. At least I'm not asking for bitmap. 😂

del

On 3/23/2026 at 6:16 PM, maddog107 said:

Doesnt solve my bandwidth issue (or storage issue). Why do you need jpgs? I am setting the quality high enough where its virtually indistinguishable for most images. And most modern sites these days have moved to webp a long time ago and even more are moving to AVIF. Your phones have moved to heic/heif for years now 2017. We are still using jpeg from 1992!

Well, I don't need JPEG, but I'd like to have original images as they were created. Most of the sites still use JPEG in backend with WEBP served by CDN so it's still possible to get original JPEG using CLI tools and avoiding getting WEBP/AVIF from CDNs is already a pain in the butt, and now total inability to get an original image here is the real bummer.

And regarding "We are still using jpeg from 1992!", it's not only us, it's also every single digital camera and mobile phone manufacturer. JPEG is a de-facto standard in photography. Even Instagram still uses JPEG.

If you're putting everything behind CDN anyway, can you keep JPEGs and let CDN decide what to send to client? That way everyone who does not care about format will get WEBP from CDN and those few that do can still get JPEG.

51 minutes ago, dainb said:

Well, I don't need JPEG, but I'd like to have original images as they were created. Most of the sites still use JPEG in backend with WEBP served by CDN so it's still possible to get original JPEG using CLI tools and avoiding getting WEBP/AVIF from CDNs is already a pain in the butt, and now total inability to get an original image here is the real bummer.

And regarding "We are still using jpeg from 1992!", it's not only us, it's also every single digital camera and mobile phone manufacturer. JPEG is a de-facto standard in photography. Even Instagram still uses JPEG.

If you're putting everything behind CDN anyway, can you keep JPEGs and let CDN decide what to send to client? That way everyone who does not care about format will get WEBP from CDN and those few that do can still get JPEG.

We have 14TB of image on pure SSDs in raid (expensive) just to keep up with the load, if we now have to have another identical copy althoguht smaller (about 50-60% in our tests) in webp that is still a signficant amoutn of storage cost. So 14TB of storage for say a handleful of users, probably in the double digits. The question then becomes is it worth the cost. If the jpeg is indistinguishable from the compressed version, then why have it at all?

23 minutes ago, maddog107 said:

We have 14TB of image on pure SSDs in raid (expensive) just to keep up with the load, if we now have to have another identical copy althoguht smaller (about 50-60% in our tests) in webp that is still a signficant amoutn of storage cost. So 14TB of storage for say a handleful of users, probably in the double digits. The question then becomes is it worth the cost. If the jpeg is indistinguishable from the compressed version, then why have it at all?

You don't need have another copy, CDN will download JPEG and store it as WEBP at their servers and will serve WEBP based on Accept headers provided by browser, in most cases it'll be WEBP. But JPEG is still available if you know how to go around CDN cache or use custom browser headers. Not sure whether using CDN is cheaper or not in terms of bandwidth, you'd have to test it yourself.