4 ms·

98% population don't care about all those acronyms you used. If I can have 5-10 times smaller WebP file at comparable quality than JPEG I don't really care abou

• jonsneyers 4y ago
  Well but you cannot have a 5-10 times smaller WebP at a quality comparable to JPEG. If low quality is good enough for you, then you can get maybe a 10-20% saving compared to JPEG (not 80-90% as you are claiming, that is ridiculous). At higher quality, WebP does not really save anything compared to JPEG. At camera quality: WebP cannot even do that, its lossy mode has a maximum quality that is well below the kind of visually lossless encoding cameras use.
  • deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
• pornel 4y ago
  Even Google themselves claimed you get only a 30% reduction in file size when using WebP, and that's been show many times to be exaggerated — it's more like 15%. WebP has been advertised by Google for a decade, but the format is a dead-end. WebP is based on the VP8 codec, which has lost in the market to even older codecs, later has been obsoleted by VP9, and the tech has later been upgraded to VP10 and AV1. WebP is already a few generations behind the state of the art, and it wasn't even good when it was new. People sometimes see huge difference in file size when converting JPEG to WebP, but that's 10%-15% reduction from improved compression, and the rest of reduction is from loss of quality caused by WebP's limitations and lossy nature of the conversion. WebP is like a magic backpack that makes your baggage 5-10 lighter — by having a hole and dropping your items.
  • deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]