vector graphics and raster graphics aren't really comparable.

Why not?

They display an image. Bit if a weak argument to say they dont matter when theyre being used to create the same final outcome.

How would you show a photographed image as a svg? Either you would have to "vectorize" the image which would look totally different or you'd create a grid of vectors with different hue values, ultimately representing pixels in an extremely inefficient format.

Raster graphics and vector graphics can't be compared because sure, you could create 2 million vector squares with individual positions, sizes and colors and align it into a 16:9 grid or you could just use a jpg. The latter being a fraction of the size and processing power needed to display it.

Why would you show a photograph as an svg? You wouldnt. Thats what jpegs are for.

We're discussing transparency and the use case for it. I dont think ive ever heard of someone wanting transparency in a photo. The only times i see the need is if theyre doing something that is better off in a vector format. I.e. png, which is being supplanted by svg, which alleviates the size problems raised about pngs.

I.e. webp is a format solution in search of a problem.

Downvoted, wow, petty.

>I dont think ive ever heard of someone wanting transparency in a photo.

OK, but they do. It's pretty common for someone to cut out an object in a photo and have a transparent background.