I 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...
WebP is so great except it's not (2021)
41–50 of 411 posts
Re: WebP is so great except it's not (2021)
#42This seems to be in the same spirit as audiophiles claiming they can hear the difference between various speaker cables, or the "hints of dark chocolate" in wine tasting. Personally I see zero differences in the images on that page and unless the author has some really super-human vision abilities (possible! but unlikely) my guess is he doesn't either. WebP looks perfectly fine to me.
Re: WebP is so great except it's not (2021)
#43Unless the OP is using a 8K monitor with professional color grading, I don't understand how he can say that some of these pictures are "looking like shit". They all look exactly the same to me on my regular 27" 1080p, on my 27" 2K or on my iPhone.
Re: WebP is so great except it's not (2021)
#44Unless the OP is using a 8K monitor with professional color grading, I don't understand how he can say that some of these pictures are "looking like shit". They all look exactly the same to me on my regular 27" 1080p, on my 27" 2K or on my iPhone.
The banding is just not supposed to be there.
Re: WebP is so great except it's not (2021)
#45Earlier quoted context omitted.
It could be partially placebo affect. Its not like he is doing a blinded test.
It's not, it's just that people who spend thousands of dollars and hours into photography are more susceptible to care. Same with music, most people are fine with $15 earphones while musicians or music enthusiasts will find them disgusting.
Re: WebP is so great except it's not (2021)
#46Re: WebP is so great except it's not (2021)
#47It's such a shame Google decided to block adoption of JPEG XL: it's a strict improvement over classic JPEG (you can losslessly reencode JPEG to JXL and reduce the size, due to a better entropy coder in JXL!) and JXL has various other upgrades compared to 'classic' JPEG. In the meantime, let's hope AVIF or whatever manages to pick up the slack, and/or other browsers decide en masse to support JPEG XL anyway; that woul…
Re: WebP is so great except it's not (2021)
#48I 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.
The whole font is bad. It looks pixilated and blurry, which can only be explained by that being the intended look. It's bizarre.
Re: WebP is so great except it's not (2021)
#49Re: WebP is so great except it's not (2021)
#50I 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.
At first I thought I had an unusual amount of very small hair on my display.