Is WebP really better than JPEG?

#1

Post by kasabali » Tue, Jun 23, 2020, 2:28 PM UTC

Is WebP really better than JPEG?
siipo.la

Re: Is WebP really better than JPEG?

#2

Post by kome » Tue, Jun 23, 2020, 2:42 PM UTC

tl;dr: it's not.

And it's also a very annoying to deal with them, I might add, especially when you need to save them or to work with them, as they are not natively supported by macOS or win.

Re: Is WebP really better than JPEG?

#3

Post by Santosh83 » Tue, Jun 23, 2020, 2:44 PM UTC

As 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: Is WebP really better than JPEG?

#4

Post by HenryKissinger » Tue, Jun 23, 2020, 2:46 PM UTC

I make a lot of memes for Reddit with MS Paint. I tend to avoid WebP because of compatibility issues. Neither Reddit's native image host nor Imgur allows WebP files, and I save memes using images from multiple formats (e.g. a jpg, a png, and a WebP) in jpg or png to avoid that. When a WebP file is saved into jpg or png Paint gives an error message about how this will erase all transparency, but for my purposes that is not a problem.

Re: Is WebP really better than JPEG?

#5

Post by Jonnax » Tue, Jun 23, 2020, 2:49 PM UTC

So what's this AVIF format they mention that's actually better than both?

WebP did not take off.

But will AVIF be any better?

Re: Is WebP really better than JPEG?

#6

Post by singlow » Tue, Jun 23, 2020, 2:50 PM UTC

Santosh83 wrote: post #3

As 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.

ImageMagick

Re: Is WebP really better than JPEG?

#7

Post by lowmemcpu » Tue, Jun 23, 2020, 2:50 PM UTC

I'm using Firefox and just tried to save a webp image and it tried to save as a web page. [initially, I said no.. see edit below]

Edit: Looks like it was that specific website and they are doing something odd, so I retract my initial judgement.

Re: Is WebP really better than JPEG?

#8

Post by untog » Tue, Jun 23, 2020, 2:52 PM UTC

FWIW one of the reasons this has become relevant again is because the next version of Safari supports WebP. The article's discussion of AVIF is interesting but you're not going to be able to use it on the web any time soon.

I'd be curious to see a WebP vs PNG comparison, since (IIRC) it has a lossless mode too.

Re: Is WebP really better than JPEG?

#9

Post by pixelbath » Tue, Jun 23, 2020, 2:52 PM UTC

Subjectively, I'd say at those settings the WebP versions look slightly worse, though they don't suffer from the blocking artifacts native to JPEG.

For the images I serve on my sites, a few KB here and there aren't going to make a huge difference, and I'd rather avoid the hassle of serving content that isn't universally supported.

Re: Is WebP really better than JPEG?

#10

Post by [deleted] » Tue, Jun 23, 2020, 2:52 PM UTC

[deleted]