4 ms·
I mean all the licensing and incompatibility questions aside, one very cool thing about these newer formats is they (intentionally? unintentionally?) reduce our
by digitalsushi 6y ago
I mean all the licensing and incompatibility questions aside, one very cool thing about these newer formats is they (intentionally? unintentionally?) reduce our carbon footprint a little bit, by trying to save delivery costs.
It would be pretty neat if my mac could make a thumbnail of a webp on my desktop, though. I mean without installing software, overriding security policies, or turning it into a developer laptop.
- gmueckl 6y agoIs there a good data set on energy requirements for transmission versus compression/decompression of data? Is it really that much in favor of compressed data?
- RodgerTheGreat 6y agoAs a concrete comparison, I downloaded the first webp figure on the page, "soft-drop-animation. The webp is 63,250 bytes. I used imagemagick to convert this file into a gif, resulting in a 119,265 byte file. I then ran the result through gifsicle[0] with maximum compression (-O3) to losslessly optimize it, producing a gif that is 29,711 bytes; less than half of the size of the original webp. As I noted higher on the comment chain, this usage scenario is particularly favorable to the gif format, while webp might come out ahead for photographic sources. [0] https://www.lcdf.org/gifsicle/man.html https://www.lcdf.org/gifsicle/man.html