4 ms·

I dont get it. The author seems to care highly about image quality, but also wants to squeeze out as many bytes as possible? Bandwidth is cheap. If we are tal

I dont get it. The author seems to care highly about image quality, but also wants to squeeze out as many bytes as possible? Bandwidth is cheap. If we are talking about photography as art, why would you be trying to scrap a few kb off in the first place?

tommica 3y ago
Because not all countries have cheap or unlimited bandwidth
- maigret 3y ago
  Also planes don't, so it's not a poor vs rich topic as many seem to make it be.
rahen 3y ago
You missed the point he's making: webp requires 30% more data to achieve the same dynamic than jpeg, so there's no real use for it.
- bawolff 3y ago
  Did he make that point? The only time he thought they were equivalent was when using lossless mode, which is not a reasonable comparison. He never actually compared webp at 30% more quality than jpeg.
  - rahen 3y ago
    > "WebP is actually 39 % heavier than JPEG 85 plus noise for a similar-ish look on this difficult picture, and still not totally as smooth as the JPEG (there is still a tiny bit of ringing). It’s also 30 % heavier than JPEG 90 with simple Floyd-Steinberg dithering."
  - iainmerrick 3y ago
    He did, about halfway through: WebP [lossy, 96] is actually 39 % heavier than JPEG 85 plus noise for a similar-ish look on this difficult picture, and still not totally as smooth as the JPEG (there is still a tiny bit of ringing). It’s also 30 % heavier than JPEG 90 with simple Floyd-Steinberg dithering.
neurostimulant 3y ago
The author is also a web designers that primarily use wordpress. Wordpress website owners these days would put their site into pagespeed insight and that tool will advise that images to be converted to webp, then demand their web guy to do it. I imagine the author got tired of seeing images on their sites ruined but can't do anything because that's what the clients want to tick off a box in pagespeed insight.
Pxtl 3y ago
Because it's a substantial amount of effort to upgrade to the "new" tech, and he's showing that the "new" tech is actually worse than the "old" tech of reliable old jpeg. > Bandwidth is cheap. Labour is not. Just leave your jpegs as-is!
palata 3y ago
It's more nuanced than that: the author compares two lossy compressions and gives their opinion about which one is better. It is not honest to say "use my compression algorithm, it is better" and then, when people point out that it is actually worse, to say "well if you care about quality, you should not compress anyway". It doesn't make the algorithm any better.
whoopdedo 3y ago
The repeated callouts to PageSpeed imply that their concerned about search placement, which is understandable for the profession. If your site is bumped off the first page because Google doesn't like that you're still using JPEG that's lost income for you. It can also be an issue if a client asks for WebP. Do you give in and deliver a lower quality image and allow your art to be displayed in a degraded manner? Losing future clients who think your photos look bad. Or refuse out of dignity and lose the current client?

tommica 3y ago

Because not all countries have cheap or unlimited bandwidth

maigret 3y ago
Also planes don't, so it's not a poor vs rich topic as many seem to make it be.

rahen 3y ago

You missed the point he's making: webp requires 30% more data to achieve the same dynamic than jpeg, so there's no real use for it.

bawolff 3y ago
Did he make that point? The only time he thought they were equivalent was when using lossless mode, which is not a reasonable comparison. He never actually compared webp at 30% more quality than jpeg.
- rahen 3y ago
  > "WebP is actually 39 % heavier than JPEG 85 plus noise for a similar-ish look on this difficult picture, and still not totally as smooth as the JPEG (there is still a tiny bit of ringing). It’s also 30 % heavier than JPEG 90 with simple Floyd-Steinberg dithering."
- iainmerrick 3y ago
  He did, about halfway through: WebP [lossy, 96] is actually 39 % heavier than JPEG 85 plus noise for a similar-ish look on this difficult picture, and still not totally as smooth as the JPEG (there is still a tiny bit of ringing). It’s also 30 % heavier than JPEG 90 with simple Floyd-Steinberg dithering.

neurostimulant 3y ago

The author is also a web designers that primarily use wordpress. Wordpress website owners these days would put their site into pagespeed insight and that tool will advise that images to be converted to webp, then demand their web guy to do it. I imagine the author got tired of seeing images on their sites ruined but can't do anything because that's what the clients want to tick off a box in pagespeed insight.

Pxtl 3y ago

Because it's a substantial amount of effort to upgrade to the "new" tech, and he's showing that the "new" tech is actually worse than the "old" tech of reliable old jpeg. > Bandwidth is cheap. Labour is not. Just leave your jpegs as-is!

palata 3y ago

It's more nuanced than that: the author compares two lossy compressions and gives their opinion about which one is better. It is not honest to say "use my compression algorithm, it is better" and then, when people point out that it is actually worse, to say "well if you care about quality, you should not compress anyway". It doesn't make the algorithm any better.

whoopdedo 3y ago

The repeated callouts to PageSpeed imply that their concerned about search placement, which is understandable for the profession. If your site is bumped off the first page because Google doesn't like that you're still using JPEG that's lost income for you. It can also be an issue if a client asks for WebP. Do you give in and deliver a lower quality image and allow your art to be displayed in a degraded manner? Losing future clients who think your photos look bad. Or refuse out of dignity and lose the current client?