WebP is so great except it's not

Re:WebP is so great except it's not by Pxtl on Friday December 15, 2023 @09:16AM (#38654361)

> The examples are just bad. If you want to show something, screenshot and enlarge it to show the artifacts.

Yes! Where's the red underlines and diffs? I can see the background banding, but the foreground looks the same at a glance except that some of them look ambiguously "off" in ways that could just be placebo.

You'd think a visual artist would be more interested in visual communication and not just a wall of text with un-annotated photos.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:WebP is so great except it's not by edflsafoiewq on Friday December 15, 2023 @12:57PM (#38656696)

The article is about the background banding.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:WebP is so great except it's not by not2b on Friday December 15, 2023 @12:58PM (#38656701)

I think he was complaining specifically about the background banding.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:WebP is so great except it's not by wila on Friday December 15, 2023 @01:07PM (#38656781)

I downloaded the images and then compared them via Beyond Compare.

After that it was pretty obvious what the author is talking about.

[ Parent | on HN ]