Does anyone have insight as to whether this same evaluation re:AVIF applies to WebM?
Edit: saw somewhere that it is used in production for real-time video, but had trouble using rav1e as opposed to libvpx
Is WebP really better than JPEG?
11–20 of 319 posts
Re: Is WebP really better than JPEG?
#12I just relaunched a website that makes extensive use of photographic collages that necessitate alpha backgrounds. They were previously shipping "retina-grade", multi-megabyte images all over, a typical page load could easily reach 25mb.
I managed to refit it with `` tags using WEBP as well as JP2. The latter was a great deal of trouble, it appears that "the community" (notably Gatsby and Contentful) are very happy to talk about the benefits of WebP but conveniently ignore that Safari is the most important mobile browser, and Safari desktop is not insignificant.
I bring this both to point out that there is a very valid reason to use WebP over JPEG — alpha blending — and that this entire field is still a gigantic mess.
Re: Is WebP really better than JPEG?
#13As someone who hosts images on their site, what is the best software (preferably open source) one can use to compress JPEG images imported from a digital camera? I would be glad to serve only JPEGs and dispense with WebP versions and simplify my site html. A straightforward encoding of a JPEG into a WebP (using GIMP) does give me an almost 1/3rd reduction in file size, which is not insignificant.
imager.io was on here recently and seems to do a good job compressing into normal JPEG images.
Re: Is WebP really better than JPEG?
#14I just relaunched a website that makes extensive use of photographic collages that necessitate alpha backgrounds. They were previously shipping "retina-grade", multi-megabyte images all over, a typical page load could easily reach 25mb. I managed to refit it with ` ` tags using WEBP as well as JP2. The latter was a great deal of trouble, it appears that "the community" (notably Gatsby and Contentful) are very happy t…
Safari Mobile is a broken mess not worth supporting.
Re: Is WebP really better than JPEG?
#15I just relaunched a website that makes extensive use of photographic collages that necessitate alpha backgrounds. They were previously shipping "retina-grade", multi-megabyte images all over, a typical page load could easily reach 25mb. I managed to refit it with ` ` tags using WEBP as well as JP2. The latter was a great deal of trouble, it appears that "the community" (notably Gatsby and Contentful) are very happy t…
WEBP support has been added to the next version of Safari (14).
Re: Is WebP really better than JPEG?
#16chrome keeps changing downloaded images to webP which is annoyin af. can't even find a way to disable it
Re: Is WebP really better than JPEG?
#17I just relaunched a website that makes extensive use of photographic collages that necessitate alpha backgrounds. They were previously shipping "retina-grade", multi-megabyte images all over, a typical page load could easily reach 25mb. I managed to refit it with ` ` tags using WEBP as well as JP2. The latter was a great deal of trouble, it appears that "the community" (notably Gatsby and Contentful) are very happy t…
Safari Mobile is a broken mess not worth supporting.
I think by the nature of being the second most used browser, it's worth supporting. You don't have to like supporting it however.
Re: Is WebP really better than JPEG?
#18Some data from when we deployed WebP generation: https://blog.cloudflare.com/a-very-webp-new-year-from-cloudf...
Re: Is WebP really better than JPEG?
#19So what's this AVIF format they mention that's actually better than both? WebP did not take off. But will AVIF be any better?
It's based on the next-gen AV1 video codec. I've tried it out, and it's amazing.
https://netflixtechblog.com/avif-for-next-generation-image-c...
Re: Is WebP really better than JPEG?
#20As someone who hosts images on their site, what is the best software (preferably open source) one can use to compress JPEG images imported from a digital camera? I would be glad to serve only JPEGs and dispense with WebP versions and simplify my site html. A straightforward encoding of a JPEG into a WebP (using GIMP) does give me an almost 1/3rd reduction in file size, which is not insignificant.
Re-encoding will produce smaller images because it’s discarding information - if you compare that WebP image you the original you’ll inevitably see fine detail is missing. That may or may not be reasonable but to be fair you’d want to compare it with different quality levels using MozJPEG.
The easiest way to do a simple comparison might be to install ImageOptim and process a few images with various tools. Based on that you could put the same tools into your site’s workflow.