I clearly have "non-educated eyes" as I can't see any meaningful differences personally.
It depends greatly on your device. On my work windows machine I can see a bit of banding. On my phone, it's worse. On my macbook, it's atrocious.
WebP is so great except it's not (2021)
31–40 of 411 posts
Re: WebP is so great except it's not (2021)
#32I opened the first two pictures in separate tabs and switched quickly between them. There is zero difference. Tried it on two different monitors, Chrome and Firefox. Same with the pictures of the guy at the end. EDIT: The last comparison is webp twice, he linked it wrong. Here is the jpg one, still no difference: https://eng.aurelienpierre.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/8/20...
I can readily tell the difference on the guy's forehead. The webp version has less dynamic and looks like a big white spot, while jpeg has more shades.
Re: WebP is so great except it's not (2021)
#33I know this is not constructive and I'm sorry, but I just can't read the text with those st and ct ligatures. It makes me feel like the author is trolling with them and I shouldn't take the text seriously. I know that's an exaggeration but that's what the design makes me feel.
I also found it distracting, which is a shame, because the actual core of the argument the author is making is an important one.
Re: WebP is so great except it's not (2021)
#34I know this is not constructive and I'm sorry, but I just can't read the text with those st and ct ligatures. It makes me feel like the author is trolling with them and I shouldn't take the text seriously. I know that's an exaggeration but that's what the design makes me feel.
I couldn't read it because it was a tiny column of text at a tiny font size with the rest of the screen being wasted space. Thank goodness for reader view.
Re: WebP is so great except it's not (2021)
#35I can see some banding on the one labeled webp lossless. What gives? Is the banding in the source material? Are we using a different definition of "lossless" than i am used to?
Edit: i think maybe my browser is scaling the photo which is adding artifacts.
Edit2: maybe the thumbnails are scaled at different quality levels???
Re: WebP is so great except it's not (2021)
#36I don't get the point of complaining about losing such small details that non-educated eye can't see for a compression format.
That's the whole point of compressing the image, isn't it?
To me, it looks like webp does its job.
Re: WebP is so great except it's not (2021)
#37I dont get it. The author seems to care highly about image quality, but also wants to squeeze out as many bytes as possible? Bandwidth is cheap. If we are talking about photography as art, why would you be trying to scrap a few kb off in the first place?
You missed the point he's making: webp requires 30% more data to achieve the same dynamic than jpeg, so there's no real use for it.
Re: WebP is so great except it's not (2021)
#38I know this is not constructive and I'm sorry, but I just can't read the text with those st and ct ligatures. It makes me feel like the author is trolling with them and I shouldn't take the text seriously. I know that's an exaggeration but that's what the design makes me feel.
[deleted]
Re: WebP is so great except it's not (2021)
#39I opened the first two pictures in separate tabs and switched quickly between them. There is zero difference. Tried it on two different monitors, Chrome and Firefox. Same with the pictures of the guy at the end. EDIT: The last comparison is webp twice, he linked it wrong. Here is the jpg one, still no difference: https://eng.aurelienpierre.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/8/20...
I did the same, and it took me a long time to spot it, but in the upper-right corner you see circles in the WebP version. It's outside the centre of attention, so it's not that obvious. Actually, it wasn't until I saw the second picture and knew what to look for that I spotted this in the first picture.
It's not so easy to see if the browser zooms the image, so make sure to open the image and set zoom to 100%. I also need to keep my face fairly close to my screen (12" 1920×1080, so not that large).
Re: WebP is so great except it's not (2021)
#40The gradients on webp frequently look like video stills. Chroma subsampling reduces the density of available luminance approximations and the more heavily it's applied, the worse gradients look. High contrast high frequency details aren't affected much, but gradients can really suffer.