4 ms·

The author's point is deeply stupid. As he admits: > WebP re-encoding of an already lossy compressed JPEG So... all this shows nothing. Is webp worse than j

by x0x0 3y ago

The author's point is deeply stupid. As he admits: > WebP re-encoding of an already lossy compressed JPEG So... all this shows nothing. Is webp worse than jpeg? Not addressed. He re-encoded jpeg to webp and it somehow didn't magically cure the compression artifacts he's seeing! Who coulda thunk! Any comparison starts with taking the originals, encoding to jpeg and webp, and comparing that. Or he could repeatedly encode original -> jpeg -> jpeg and compare that to what he has, which is original -> jpeg -> webp

ubercow13 3y ago
Most of the comparisons are encoded from source. The one that isn't is because re-encoding is a specific recommendation from the services that they are criticising. They are specifically showing that yes, that's a bad idea.