Re:WebP is so great except it's not
by LeoNatan25 on Friday December 15, 2023 @11:04AM
(#38655446)
No, in both cases, use something that is better than JPEG and Webp: JPEG XL.
The thing that I like the best about jxl is how consistent the reference encoder is. If I need to compress an entire directory of images, cxjl -d 1.0 will generate good looking images at a pretty darn small size.
Using mozjpeg (SPEG), or openjpeg (JPEG 2000) or cwebp, and I want to get even close (in bpp) to what cjxl does on the default I have to use different settings for b&w vs color and line-art vs photos.
The last time I checked, it was not possible to re-encode a JXL image into a JPEG image. Is this now supported?
It's possible to encode any image format to any other; I'm not sure what they has to do with my comment though
Re:WebP is so great except it's not
by _fat_santa on Friday December 15, 2023 @11:06AM
(#38655478)
JPEG XL is great except is has virtually no browser support[1]
Re:WebP is so great except it's not
by qingcharles on Friday December 15, 2023 @02:38PM
(#38657860)
JPEG XL is clearly superior in almost all contexts, but Google killed it and then Apple is trying to support it now. Unless Google reverses its stance though it will stay dead.
My takeaway as a non-photographer is: "different tools for different uses". If you're posting photography where image quality matters then use JPEG or another format that you think displays the image best. If you're writing a blog post with screenshots or other images where minute quality doesn't matter that much then use WebP.