231–240 of 411 posts
This article didn't go into the biggest problem with webp for me: the inconveninence of the format outside the browser compared to the small space saving. There are better formats (the video-codec inspired ones like heif, avif, and what might come out of h266, or even jpeg-xl), and webp just seems like a compromise without enough upside.
I feel your pain. Right-click, save as, and ... awww-goddamn it, another WebP >:|
Earlier quoted context omitted.
WebP is actually based on a video codec. It's just that VP8 pretty much never caught on with hardware encoders/decoders apparently.
VP8 was never competitive so most of the energy went into VP9, which did beat H264.
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...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I've noticed the same issue with WebP and have gone back to JPG/PNG for most things (jpg for photos, png for UI-type images) Wait... I agree for JPG but if you use lossless WEBP instead of PNG, isn't it simply the same pixels, just with a file about 30% smaller than the corresponding PNG file? (and 15% smaller compared to already heavily optimized PNG files like when using zopfli/optipng/etc.). Isn't the "lossless"…
Yeah but I just don't fw webp and other weird formats. JPEG and PNG are tried and true, also it's nice how the extension indicates lossiness. On the technical side, webp support still isn't like png. Tried dragging a webp into Google Slides just now, got "unsupported image type," which is ironic. I'll try again in like 10 years.
Oh that's a good point.
I see lossless WEBP mostly as a way to save bandwith where PNG would have been used. If you've got a pipeline where, anyway, you already "crush" your PNG file, you may as well also generate a lossless WEBP file and serve that: all browsers support it. And you can fall back on the optimized PNG should the browser not support WEBP.
I mean: I use WEBP, but only lossless WEBP, as a replacement for PNG when I'd serve PNG files to browsers.
But for that one usecase: showing a PNG file in a webpage, I don't see that many downsides to lossless WEBP. It saves bandwith.
I've noticed the same issue with WebP and have gone back to JPG/PNG for most things (jpg for photos, png for UI-type images) I think the real problem is, like many of the commenters here, most people can't tell the difference because desktop monitors have been stuck in a deadzone of zero innovation for the last 10 years. I'm sure half the folks here are viewing his example images on a 2012-era HD 1920x1080 LCD, which…
I find it interesting how many comments here (presumably from "tech guys") confirm what the author wrote: > So there is a real issue with the design priorities of image algos from tech guys who clearly lack historical and artistic background, and don’t talk to artists, who anyway have largely decided that they were above science, maths and other menial materialistic concerns. I am a tech guy, and when a photographer…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
VP8 was never competitive so most of the energy went into VP9, which did beat H264.
It beat H.264 in terms of quality/size but not in terms of hardware support. This is why Google Meet is the laggiest video conference software, they keep trying to make VP9 a thing while the others stuck with H.264. And now there's H.265.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah but I just don't fw webp and other weird formats. JPEG and PNG are tried and true, also it's nice how the extension indicates lossiness. On the technical side, webp support still isn't like png. Tried dragging a webp into Google Slides just now, got "unsupported image type," which is ironic. I'll try again in like 10 years.
> On the technical side, webp support still isn't like png. Oh that's a good point. I see lossless WEBP mostly as a way to save bandwith where PNG would have been used . If you've got a pipeline where, anyway, you already "crush" your PNG file, you may as well also generate a lossless WEBP file and serve that: all browsers support it. And you can fall back on the optimized PNG should the browser not support WEBP. I m…
Also, if users download your images and use them elsewhere, webp will still be more annoying for them. Though it's not very common that you want them doing that anyway.
Could there be some default optimization going on?
I wish Slack supported webp. I end up saving an image have to run "convert image.webp image.jpg" and then upload the jpeg