WebP is so great except it's not

Re:WebP is so great except it's not by kvrck on Friday December 15, 2023 @07:02AM (#38653292)

I don't get the point of complaining about losing such small details that non-educated eye can't see for a compression format.

That's the whole point of compressing the image, isn't it?

To me, it looks like webp does its job.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:WebP is so great except it's not by truculent on Friday December 15, 2023 @07:09AM (#38653340)

OP is a photographer and is pretty clear about that being part of their motivation:

> Stick to JPEG at 90 quality (or at least 85) if images matter to you, e.g. if you are a visual artist. If images are pretty decorations for your textual content, it doesn’t matter.

[ Parent | on HN ]