• Is WebP really better than JPEG?

    From OSnews@21:1/5 to All on Sun Jul 5 11:18:51 2020
    If you have used tools like Google's PageSpeed Insights, you probably have run into a suggestion to use "next-gen image formats", namely Google's WebP image format. Google claims that their WebP format is 25 - 34% smaller than JPEG at equivalent quality.[
    I think Google's result of 25-34% smaller files is mostly caused by the fact that they compared their WebP encoder to the JPEG reference implementation, Independent JPEG Group's cjpeg, not Mozilla's improved MozJPEG encoder. I decided to run some tests
    to see how cjpeg, MozJPEG and WebP compare. I also tested the new AVIF format, based on the open AV1 video codec. AVIF support is already in Firefox behind a flag and should be coming soon to Chrome if this ticket is to be believed.

    Spoiler alert: WebP doesn';t really provide any benefits, and since websites generally use JPEG as a fallback anyway, you end up with having to store two images at the same time, defeating the purpose entirely.


    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)