3 ms·
A practical comparison of image formats for the web. JPEG vs. WebP vs. AVIF
- hilbert42 6y ago'Uncompressed at 1400x933px it is 820kb in size. This is a bit too much data for my taste to feature this image on a website.' The trouble is that when everyone takes this lax attitude the average entropy of information in web imagees increases (as it is, the overall quality of images on the web is already bad enough). We see the same commonplace sloppy attitude with original photographs that are scanned for archiving at a resolution lower than the content of the image then the original photo is thrown away or discarded. Now, the digital image becomes the master. Later, when detail needs to be extracted from say a small part of the image that information is no longer there to recover. We see this problem occurring time and time again with important images such as school or army platoon photos where the image of one person needs to be extracted in detail and the only information left to recover is a pixelated blob. Few seem to care about information loss until it's too late.
- mceachen 6y agoI was surprised that TFA asserted that WebP could be "used everywhere." macOS Safari users must upgrade to Big Sur to support WebP. Only a brave few devs are on Big Sur currently.
- larsfronius 6y agoAh, fair point. So it's JPEGs and fallbacks all the way until Big Sur...