2 ms·
> ... PNG are good enough. For a start it's 2023 and all browsers do support lossless webp [1]. Lossless webp (webp can be both lossy or lossless) is not only
by TacticalCoder 3y ago
> ... PNG are good enough.
For a start it's 2023 and all browsers do support lossless webp [1].
Lossless webp (webp can be both lossy or lossless) is not only typically smaller than most optimized PNG files but also compresses faster than the optimized PNG encoders.
So, basically, the main reason to use PNG in 2023 for anything Web related is if you like wasting bandwith. For 99.95% of the PNG files (something huge like that) are smaller when encoded with lossless webp.
Heck, even my Emacs supports webp images.
Then other formats are already knocking on the door and promise even better compression than webp.
https://caniuse.com/webp https://caniuse.com/webp
- tambourine_man 3y agoNot if you use MozJPEG and a decent PNG compressor, like ECT, OxiPNG, PNGCrush, etc. Time and time again an article pops up showing how marginal the difference is, if at all.
- JyrkiAlakuijala 3y agoif you use an optimal strategy to compress PNGs, WebP lossless is still 26 % more dense if you take usual PNGs from the wild, WebP lossless is 42-45 % more dense disclaimer: I'm a co-author of Zopfli and ZopfliPNG, and usually best PNG optimizers are based on Zopfli. I'm also the author of WebP lossless.
- mlindner 3y agoUnless you have a large image in which case you can’t even store it in webp because of its abysmal max resolution. PNG continues to be the format of record for lossless image storage. Hopefully JPEG XL can replace it.