4 ms·
Lots of replies here saying either: "I can't see the difference" or "Wow the difference is stark". My takeaway as a non-photographer is: "different tools for d
by _fat_santa 3y ago
Lots of replies here saying either: "I can't see the difference" or "Wow the difference is stark".
My takeaway as a non-photographer is: "different tools for different uses". If you're posting photography where image quality matters then use JPEG or another format that you think displays the image best. If you're writing a blog post with screenshots or other images where minute quality doesn't matter that much then use WebP.
- LeoNatan25 3y agoNo, in both cases, use something that is better than JPEG and Webp: JPEG XL.
- _fat_santa 3y agoJPEG XL is great except is has virtually no browser support[1] [1]: https://caniuse.com/jpegxl https://caniuse.com/jpegxl
- qingcharles 3y agoJPEG XL is clearly superior in almost all contexts, but Google killed it and then Apple is trying to support it now. Unless Google reverses its stance though it will stay dead.
- aidenn0 3y agoThe thing that I like the best about jxl is how consistent the reference encoder is. If I need to compress an entire directory of images, cxjl -d 1.0 will generate good looking images at a pretty darn small size. Using mozjpeg (SPEG), or openjpeg (JPEG 2000) or cwebp, and I want to get even close (in bpp) to what cjxl does on the default I have to use different settings for b&w vs color and line-art vs photos.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]