3 ms·
At least now with Jpegli, this will surely be the nail in the coffin for WebP? The article has 35% compression improvements over JPEG mentioned and that's at l
by jug 3y ago
At least now with Jpegli, this will surely be the nail in the coffin for WebP?
The article has 35% compression improvements over JPEG mentioned and that's at least as much as usually thrown around when discussing WebP.
- account42 3y agoAnd let's not forget that the advantages of WebP are already often way overstated compared to how things really match up when you don't just really on shitty metrics to pretend that images have the same quality.
- JyrkiAlakuijala 2y agoI was very careful not to overstate WebP lossless quality. I compressed the originals with zopflipng and pngcrush before stating figures (-26 %). If I had just used the internet quality images, WebP lossless would have improved size by -42 %. Yet another 'marketing textbook' way to overstate -42 % is to turn it into 'loading speed': 1/(1-0.42) = 72 % faster. None of this was made for the lossless and the most conservative estimate was shown. I didn't do any hacking or cherry picking to produce the number and I had several internal verification approaches to be correct.