Forum Discussion

ViniciusSilva's avatar
ViniciusSilva
Copper Contributor
Nov 25, 2020

Web capture saves image as JPEG, not JPG

The situation:
The Microsoft Edge Web Capture function saves a screenshot with the full 4-letter JPEG file extension, although the standard universal format is simplified as JPG.


Interestingly, digital cameras, photo editing programs, and smartphone cameras save JPEG images simply as JPG. Native Windows applications like Mspaint, Snip & Sketch, Snipping Tool also save by default only as JPG.

 

Suggestions:

By default, the maximum length of a file path in Windows is 260 characters (Microsoft Source Here), JPG has one letter less, so it improves the situation.

  • Change Microsoft Edge to save Web Captures as JPG images filename.jpg; OR
  • Change Microsoft Edge to save Web Captures as PNG images filename.png (this is currently the case with Windows Native Screenshots Windows key + PrintScreen key, which save as PNG).
  • Hi,
    For me doesn't matter JPG or JPEG, too similar, but I want that to be replaced by PNG because of its lossless algorithm. I notice the degrade in quality in web capture files, especially when I take large scrolling pictures.
    I'm going to send feedback about it and if you can please do the same through Edge browser.

  • Hi,
    For me doesn't matter JPG or JPEG, too similar, but I want that to be replaced by PNG because of its lossless algorithm. I notice the degrade in quality in web capture files, especially when I take large scrolling pictures.
    I'm going to send feedback about it and if you can please do the same through Edge browser.

  • oghaki's avatar
    oghaki
    Brass Contributor

    In addition to the fact that the only option to save from the UI is ๐˜ญ๐˜ฐ๐˜ด๐˜ด๐˜บ,ยน the ๐™…๐™‹๐™€๐™‚s are also saved in ๐Ÿฐ:๐Ÿฎ:๐Ÿฌ, which, in this context,ยฒ makes the tool much less useful than, were it to only offer ๐˜ญ๐˜ฐ๐˜ด๐˜ด๐˜บ saves but formatted in ๐—ฅ๐—š๐—• or ๐Ÿฐ:๐Ÿฐ:๐Ÿฐ. I consider having a ๐˜ญ๐˜ฐ๐˜ด๐˜ด๐˜ญ๐˜ฆ๐˜ด๐˜ด ๐—ฅ๐—š๐—• option for this use-case as an essential feature to achieve the bare minimum for usability,ยณ but I'd really like to see an option to use a newer format, such as ๐™ƒ๐™€๐™„๐˜พ or ๐˜ผ๐™‘๐Ÿญ,โด in ๐˜ญ๐˜ฐ๐˜ด๐˜ด๐˜ญ๐˜ฆ๐˜ด๐˜ด-๐—ฅ๐—š๐—•. Finally, video-captureโต would be a fantastic option, at least in ๐˜ผ๐™‘๐˜พ or some reasonably-modern format in full-resolution, possibly even offering a lossless or near-lossless option though ๐™ƒ๐™€๐™‘๐˜พ or ๐˜ผ๐™‘๐Ÿญ, or, lol, maybe even utilize ๐™ˆ๐™‰๐™‚โถ after all these years (or, I guess, ๐˜ผ๐™‹๐™‰๐™‚) for short-duration captures.
    โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”
    ยน Not offering a ๐˜ญ๐˜ฐ๐˜ด๐˜ด๐˜ญ๐˜ฆ๐˜ด๐˜ด option is puzzling considering expected range of content for the application, ๐˜ฆ๐˜ด๐˜ฑ๐˜ฆ๐˜ค๐˜ช๐˜ข๐˜ญ๐˜ญ๐˜บ when a format like ๐™‹๐™‰๐™‚ would often produce, for much of the subject-matter of web captures, file sizes which are similar to, or [, more commonly in my experience,] smaller than those of the ๐Ÿฐ:๐Ÿฎ:๐Ÿฌ, or even a ๐Ÿฐ:๐Ÿฐ:๐Ÿฐ or ๐—ฅ๐—š๐—•, ๐™…๐™‹๐™€๐™‚ of the same content.
    ยฒ In the context of web captures, having full-res color (i.e., ๐—ฅ๐—š๐—• or ๐Ÿฐ:๐Ÿฐ:๐Ÿฐ) is ๐˜ฑ๐˜ข๐˜ณ๐˜ต๐˜ช๐˜ค๐˜ถ๐˜ญ๐˜ข๐˜ณ๐˜ญ๐˜บ important, because the subject-matter being captured will commonly contain things like text, shapes, or other vector graphics or illustrations with edges that are crisp and essential to the character of what the user is trying to capture. Using chroma sub-sampling, ๐˜ฆ๐˜ด๐˜ฑ๐˜ฆ๐˜ค๐˜ช๐˜ข๐˜ญ๐˜ญ๐˜บ ๐Ÿฐ:๐Ÿฎ:๐Ÿฌ, is, perhaps, the worst compression feature to apply to this type of content, and, unlike other, smarter compression features found in ๐™…๐™‹๐™€๐™‚ and other modern ๐˜ญ๐˜ฐ๐˜ด๐˜ด๐˜บ formats, it is a blunt instrument that we would expect to provide a relatively trivial reduction in size with significant and unavoidable destruction of color information.
    ยณ Ironically, I wouldn't say the same regarding inclusion of the option of a lossy format with chroma sub-sampling.
    โด Especially, since I paid money for the Microsoft-Store-offered ๐™ƒ๐™„๐™€๐™ extensionโ€”it isn't hard to come by the codec or open-source (e.g., GIMP) or otherwise-free (e.g., Paint.Net) Windows software that contains at least reasonable support for ๐™ƒ๐™€๐™„๐˜พ's encoding options (though, as far as I'm aware, they unfortunately do not support ๐˜ญ๐˜ฐ๐˜ด๐˜ด๐˜ญ๐˜ฆ๐˜ด๐˜ด-RGB encoding, so the "๐˜ญ๐˜ฐ๐˜ด๐˜ด๐˜ญ๐˜ฆ๐˜ด๐˜ด", which I think GIMP changed to "๐˜ฏ๐˜ฆ๐˜ข๐˜ณ-๐˜ญ๐˜ฐ๐˜ด๐˜ด๐˜ญ๐˜ฆ๐˜ด๐˜ด", option is only ๐˜ญ๐˜ฐ๐˜ด๐˜ด๐˜ญ๐˜ฆ๐˜ด๐˜ด up to the (๐‘Ÿ, ๐‘”, ๐‘) โ†’ (๐‘ฆ, ๐‘ข, ๐‘ฃ) approximation error, though, lol, it's an option I'd strongly prefer this to ๐Ÿฐ:๐Ÿฎ:๐Ÿฌ ๐™…๐™‹๐™€๐™‚), but I paid the $1 with hopes that of better OS integration and more common implementation in Microsoft-programs, and, disappointingly, Edge (at least in the dev channels) is the kind of place I'd really hope to see its utilization at this point. I feel similarly about ๐˜ผ๐™‘๐Ÿญ (ideally, in ๐˜ผ๐™‘๐™„๐™), but Apple's strong integration of ๐™ƒ๐™€๐™„๐˜พ in iOS has made the latter more ubiquitous and important.
    โต I'm more concerned with this than I would otherwise be, because I was recently screwed over by ๐˜™๐˜ข๐˜ป๐˜ฆ๐˜ณ when purchasing a very expensive, Blade 15 Advanced laptop with a 3080 and an i9, as the 3080 is rendered useless for desktop capture of the integrated 2160p OLED, because, shockingly, they elected to disable changing GPU mode for this particular configuration.  Though I'm less concerned with format here, as I'm likely to re-encode, using external software for efficiency, to a format that best-fits my goal, it would be nice to get a ๐Ÿฐ:๐Ÿฐ:๐Ÿฐ option with this as well, for the same reasons as stated above regarding expected subject-matter (it makes absolutely no sense to me that we're still using dumb, blanket ๐Ÿฐ:๐Ÿฎ:๐Ÿฌ chroma sub-samlping, even for the highest-quality format available to consumers, UHD BDโ€”I would think that allowing modern encoders to decide where to drop or retain chroma resolution could always produce a superior quality-to-file-size than a blanket, homogenous reduction in chroma resolution across the frame without regard for content, but maybe I'm wrong).  
    โถ Lol, I recall being so excited, >20 years ago, when ๐™‹๐™‰๐™‚ was finalized and started to gain general software support, I read about ๐™ˆ๐™‰๐™‚, destined to replace the ancient, inefficient, indexed, and overloaded ๐™‚๐™„๐™ format with a modern ๐˜ญ๐˜ฐ๐˜ด๐˜ด๐˜ญ๐˜ฆ๐˜ด๐˜ด (and, optionally, ๐˜ญ๐˜ฐ๐˜ด๐˜ด๐˜บ through ๐™…๐™‰๐™‚) format, and I'm still holding out hope, despite the non-standard ๐˜ผ๐™‹๐™‰๐™‚ existing to make sure we never get what we were promised. I will say, the ancient appearance of the indexed, dithered ๐™‚๐™„๐™ has grown on me, as it does tend to add to the humor factor of some animations, but it would be nice if we could get this without the insane file sizes.

Resources