> To make a conclusion about how a codec handles image features you need to to quantitative comparison across a big enough data set to make conclusions about an

> To make a conclusion about how a codec handles image features you need to to quantitative comparison across a big enough data set to make conclusions about any kind of generalized quality. > > Cherry-picking a single image is useful only for fanboy screeching. Do you really expect a photographer to prepare a quantitative codec comparison benchmark? All they have is anecdotal evidence, and I think it is fair for them to criticize and make decision based off of their own anecdotal evidence. > This goes triple for modern codecs like JPEG XL, VP8/9, AV1/AVIF, etc. because they deliberately make tradeoffs when compressing based on how the image will SEEM to people, not how pixel correct it is. Note just how many people say they barely notice a problem - this is where WebP made the tradeoff. JPEG did it elsewhere (e.g. text). No one is going to sit here and claim that WebP performs better on all images or JPEG performs better on all images. Obviously there is going to be some kind of tradeoff. TBH, my gripe with WebP is not that it's worse than JPEG. IMO it is in fact better than JPEG in most cases. My problem is that it is only an incremental improvement over JPEGs. We are breaking compatibility with the universal image formats and we get the following benefits: - 15-25% better compression - animation - transparency - lossless compression On the other hand, we could break compatibility, adopt JXL and get the following benefits: - lossy compression on par with WebP - animation - transparency - lossless compression that is marginally better than WebP - actually kinda not break backwards compatibility because you can convert JPEG -> JXL losslessly - enhanced colorspace support - progressive decoding - very fast decode speed - support for ultra-large images Adopting WebP would be great. But why adopt WebP when instead you can adopt JXL which is superior in terms of features and on par in terms of compression?