4 ms·

If you tried and couldn't see, it might be like others say that it's more visible on certain monitors and setups. But then, again - if you are designing codecs

If you tried and couldn't see, it might be like others say that it's more visible on certain monitors and setups. But then, again - if you are designing codecs or choosing them, you probably want a monitor that makes it easy to see these things. I can see them on my old iPhone screen. It reminds me of how sometimes you see a huge billboard hideously strong 10 foot wide JPEG compression artifacts. It was someone's job to make those, too.

BackBlast 3y ago
> But then, again - if you are designing codecs or choosing them, you probably want a monitor that makes it easy to see these things You keep bringing this up. I don't really care. Someone designing a codec may have put this apparent problem case on the don't-care list as well. I would be in general agreement with the designer's priorities for a reasonable web codec. I have, with some care, selected webp as a general codec for web use on most of my sites. Nobody is complaining, and my page weights and development speed is improved. I don't have to fret between png+transparency and jpg to minimize asset size while maintaining it's usability. I just use webp and most of the time it's a size/speed win with good enough quality. Not every codec needs to be artist and photographer approved.