4 ms·
I'd argue the exact opposite: the two use nearly equivalent methods, but one of them is completely backwards compatible with JPEG, while the other one... isn't.
by niftich 10y ago
I'd argue the exact opposite: the two use nearly equivalent methods, but one of them is completely backwards compatible with JPEG, while the other one... isn't.
- Scaevolus 10y agoThe ability to losslessly convert it between another format doesn't seem that relevant for a browser-- you still need to deploy new software to support it, at which point you might as well just use something more efficient than JPEG. Remember, the compression is lossy to begin with.