261–270 of 411 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
While I agree with the rational component of the article (webp may be inappropriate for artistic photos) I had to force myself to read it. The "t" in the font screws me up completely, I tried twice to wipe the screen of my phone then thought that maybe it's a background picture getting in the way. So overall I find author's aesthetic sense very questionable which contrasts with his high-moral-ground tone.
The "t" or the "ct" ligature?
If I cared about archive image quality (and I do) , I wouldn't re-compress older images in a new format unless I could do so from uncompressed originals. Re-encoding from a lossy compressed source will make quality worse. Storage is cheap and getting cheaper. What would make sense is choosing safe settings for compressing new photos in the new format.
JPEG-XL is supposed to reencode old JPEG files into 20% smaller files without quality loss though. In context, Google has been holding JPEG-XL back by removing support for it from Chrome and refusing to reinstate it, claiming that it did not have good enough "incremental benefits compared to existing formats" such as webp.
The images don't link to the correct filetype stated.
- "JPEG, lossy, 85 : 184 kiB" → links actually to a WebP file (https://eng.aurelienpierre.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/8/20...)
- "JPEG, lossy, 85 : 211 KiB" → links actually to a WebP file (https://eng.aurelienpierre.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/8/20...)
etc...
So when the blog tells you that JPEG is so much better quality, the "jpeg" image that's actually being shown is a WebP image.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Lots of replies here saying either: "I can't see the difference" or "Wow the difference is stark". My takeaway as a non-photographer is: "different tools for different uses". If you're posting photography where image quality matters then use JPEG or another format that you think displays the image best. If you're writing a blog post with screenshots or other images where minute quality doesn't matter that much then u…
No, in both cases, use something that is better than JPEG and Webp: JPEG XL.
Using mozjpeg (SPEG), or openjpeg (JPEG 2000) or cwebp, and I want to get even close (in bpp) to what cjxl does on the default I have to use different settings for b&w vs color and line-art vs photos.
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 >:|
The 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.
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...
You either have a bad screen or limited eyesight, it's quite funny to me that this is the most upvoted comment. There's definitely very ugly "banding" going on in the gradients on the WebP versions i say as someone who's worked extensively with UX and interfaces. I'm on a M2 Macbook Air.
I've read all the comments, and zoomed way in. I can see it on one of the pairs if I pay attention, but on most of them, I still am not sure how to even look for the difference.
Last time I had a vision check, I got a 20/15, which is supposed to be better than "normal". It may have declined since then.
I don't think it's a monitor or eyesight thing. I think I don't know "how" to look for the effect I'm supposed to be seeing.
Then proceed to play the flac's in their car. Ok.
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...
See my post lower in this thread.
