[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / agatha2 / animu / ausneets / b2 / choroy / dempart / freeb / vichan ][Options][ watchlist ]

/tech/ - Technology

You can now write text to your AI-generated image at https://aiproto.com It is currently free to use for Proto members.
Email
Comment *
File
Select/drop/paste files here
Password (Randomized for file and post deletion; you may also set your own.)
* = required field[▶ Show post options & limits]
Confused? See the FAQ.
Expand all images

File (hide): db9826fbce0aebd⋯.png (428.94 KB, 3495x912, 1165:304, Screenshot from 2019-02-06….png) (h) (u)

File (hide): 89de8e24eb86451⋯.jpg (34.36 KB, 668x179, 668:179, see this is how.jpg) (h) (u)

[–]

 No.1027999>>1028047 >>1028227 >>1028230 >>1032274 >>1032512 >>1043625 >>1043627 >>1043630 >>1043916 >>1044888 >>1044890 >>1049953 >>1062630 >>1064420 [Watch Thread][Show All Posts]

All jpg cucks will hang.

All the time I see these stupid jpg thumbnails that 8chan is using and they are bigger filesize than if they were just png while looking like shit.

Worse yet random anons keep thinking jpg is always smaller and so they save their screencaps as these shitty jpg fuzz ridden higher filesize images.

 No.1028000

File (hide): 4f4d1084486e5a7⋯.jpg (38.71 KB, 789x158, 789:158, you are new.jpg) (h) (u)


 No.1028004

it's no surprise that jpg performs poorly on images of text and geometric shapes, its compression was designed for photos.


 No.1028005

lmao those posts have to be bait


 No.1028008>>1028023 >>1028046 >>1043681

>what is FLIF

pathetic


 No.1028009

legitimately didn't know about this, thanks for sharing OP


 No.1028023>>1028027 >>1028038 >>1061968

>>1028008

Worse than lossless webp.


 No.1028027

>>1028023

this is bait


 No.1028038>>1028049

>>1028023

>what is FUIF

pathetic


 No.1028046

>>1028008

A format that nobody uses.


 No.1028047>>1028070 >>1032272

>>1027999 (OP)

>not realizing jpg is good for higher-detailed images like photos, png is good for lower-detailed images like cartoon drawings.


 No.1028049>>1028055

>>1028038

>Doesn't know AVIF

Subhuman.

But yes, FLIF, webp, all crap.


 No.1028055>>1028154

>>1028049

>AV1

lol


 No.1028058

SVG text is king


 No.1028070

>>1028047

..but that's exactly what I said.


 No.1028121>>1028153 >>1028229 >>1061968

why doesn 8ch supports webp?


 No.1028146

Y'all are retards. PNG can virtually always compress to a lower file size than JPG at any given quality, but not with MSPAINT. You need w1zz4rd h4xor skillz to control it. By default MSPAINT will try to keep more quality than what would be optimum for most web posting.


 No.1028153>>1032254

>>1028121

Because that's a good thing to do. We must avoid at all costs the spread of this utter piece of crap that wants to become a standard.

The less sites supporting it, the less adoption it will have.


 No.1028154

>>1028055

I'm sorry Dave, but AV1 is inevitable.


 No.1028155

File (hide): f776db45ee38c39⋯.png (83.91 KB, 460x360, 23:18, w5t4seyt.png) (h) (u)

You'd think by this point people in imageboards already understood the strengths and weaknesses of image formats, but I guess you can't underestimate the stupidity of retards and newfags.


 No.1028156>>1028163 >>1032567

File (hide): eb4a65cfc375869⋯.png (23.2 KB, 420x450, 14:15, jpg_vs_png.png) (h) (u)

Let me simplify it for you...


 No.1028163

>>1028156

That image shows that png is higher quality.

It doesn't point out the fact that png can not only be higher quality but also smaller filesize.


 No.1028190>>1028197

Why did JPEG 2000 and JPEG XR never take off amid the wider Internet?


 No.1028197

>>1028190

People like it simple...

And they weren't exactly supported despite being superior.


 No.1028227

>>1027999 (OP)

I love jpg crust


 No.1028229

>>1028121

But it does?


 No.1028230>>1028231 >>1061968

>>1027999 (OP)

>Worse yet random anons keep thinking jpg is always smaller and so they save their screencaps as these shitty jpg fuzz ridden higher filesize images.

But then you can immediately detect a dumb person.

> All the time I see these stupid jpg thumbnails that 8chan is using and they are bigger filesize than if they were just png while looking like shit.

Should just try encoding it into PNG or WEBP lossless, and use it instead of JPEG if the file size is the same or smaller.

Optionally also use color quantization to the point where it introduces less perceptual oss than JPEG would.

Also use mozjpeg for encoding JPEG.


 No.1028231

>>1028230

>less perceptual oss

less perceptual loss


 No.1028234>>1044992 >>1061968

Webp is shit. Here is how you disable it in Firefox:

>visit about:config

>set image.webp.enabled to false


 No.1028316>>1028513 >>1032471

wow!


 No.1028513

>>1028316

lmao what settings you used for that?


 No.1028516>>1028517

File (hide): 927d9786fe2f175⋯.png (43.83 KB, 668x179, 668:179, amidoinitrite.png) (h) (u)

test


 No.1028517

>>1028516

>it got bigger

sigh


 No.1028518

File (hide): f807a7936f708f4⋯.png (28.99 KB, 668x179, 668:179, amidoinitrite-RGB.png) (h) (u)


 No.1028520>>1028521 >>1032283

File (hide): 64af9d3b8b066e5⋯.png (3.63 KB, 668x179, 668:179, amidoinitrite.png) (h) (u)

testttt


 No.1028521>>1032471

>>1028520

hell yeah I at least got close but still not as epic as 2.75 KB


 No.1032254

>>1028153

>this utter piece of crap

Opinion discarded.


 No.1032271

could also use one of those new meme formats


 No.1032272>>1032274

>>1028047

jpg is not good for anything because its lossy


 No.1032274>>1032286 >>1032287

>>1027999 (OP)

also, jpg is a botnet

>>1032272

yeah, but uncompressed photos are huge.


 No.1032283

File (hide): 940a4d4f306ee7b⋯.png (376.42 KB, 449x574, 449:574, contains laughter.png) (h) (u)

>>1028520

>scanning a post


 No.1032286

>>1032274

>jpg is a botnet

How?


 No.1032287>>1032292

>>1032274

they are but jpg is not a good format for distribution. everyone wants to add their own round of lossy compression on it so you get that blurry crap that the internet is full of.


 No.1032292>>1032300

>>1032287

I agree, server-side image encryption without consent is an attack on the user and should be taken seriously.

Also phones with their retarded uncompressed 2mb photos are a big reason why serverside encryption is so huge.


 No.1032300

>>1032292

>encryption

It's called RECOMPRESSION or REENCODING and the thread is full of retards.

If you use JPG in 4:2:0 with 95 as quality setting for the encoder, you generally get decent results.

What's really awful is the recompression everywhere and JPG for images that were digital to begin with.

If you digitally draw something, release it as PNG even if it's 20MB!


 No.1032305>>1032338

Continuation of above:

Digitally produced images should never be compressed in a lossy way.

If you use a JPG image as wallpaper you can truly see every fucking compression artifact.

I have all my wallpapers in PNG and keep the originals in a separate folder. I just filter them with either gigapixel or waifu2x.

Lossy image compression is a burden on humanity. It's no longer necessary and only causes shit images.

It's okay for shitty vacation photos since those are full of artifacts to begin with but everything of quality should be saved in a lossless way.

What I also hate is all those scaled versions of individual pictures and thumbnails.

I hope FLIF will some day get in a state where its version is final and can be implemented everywhere.


 No.1032338


 No.1032471>>1043968 >>1045057

>>1028521

Use optipng for stripping down pngs. Pic related is identical to yours.

I bet >>1028316 used a lossy encoder like pngquant, which is why it looks so shit.


 No.1032512>>1032526 >>1032604 >>1043682

File (hide): cae1cb0af321f7b⋯.png (32.05 KB, 1178x649, 1178:649, png.png) (h) (u)

>>1027999 (OP)

.jpg becomes bigger because its lossy and due to this more colors are added to compensate.


 No.1032526

>>1032512

Use 4:4:4 compression like I do


 No.1032567

>>1028156

PNG is high quality but it takes forever to load on a webpage.


 No.1032568

File (hide): 49fca2e12a9f1ef⋯.jpg (15.64 KB, 668x179, 668:179, memex.tif.jpg) (h) (u)


 No.1032604

File (hide): 6dead23f0d7421a⋯.jpg (20.78 KB, 1178x649, 1178:649, jaypegg.jpg) (h) (u)


 No.1032612>>1032621

The worst perpitrators are the disgusting fools that save thumbnails and then have the gall to actually post them. It's fucking disgusting, I tell you what.


 No.1032621>>1043646

>>1032612

the new thing is taking a screenshot of the picture on your phone. then its often also a poorfag phone that has a low res screen so the picture is smaller than the original and theres often all kinds of unnecessary buttons on the picture that werent in the original


 No.1032651

TRIPS OF TRUTH


 No.1032703>>1033842 >>1061913

I just use png because no exif tbh


 No.1033842

>>1032703

Actually, you can chuck exif in a custom png data block.

In the good old days people would put CP in a custom png data block.


 No.1043198>>1043624 >>1043626

It baffles me why people still use jpg

>destroys image quality

>can be easily manipulated to hold malicious files

Its the boomer image extension


 No.1043624

>>1043198

Well screw you i can use what ever format i want how ever i never really cared for bit maps or bmps


 No.1043625

>>1027999 (OP)

If you still use bmp you are a true faggot


 No.1043626

>>1043198

>image extension

Spoken like a boomer.


 No.1043627>>1043631

>>1027999 (OP)

Hell you can't even upload a bmp to an image board


 No.1043630

>>1027999 (OP)

with png you cant just have one setting to get the smallest image. you need many different settings for different image types and that cant really be automated for a website like this.


 No.1043631>>1043633 >>1043638 >>1043639

>>1043627

What about a .tiff?


 No.1043633

I remember making textures for a model saving them as tiff Our color blind football coach who was currently teaching us how to make video games using the unreal engine and told us save it in a tiff Yeah I don't even know why I took that class it was a joke that wasn't funny

>>1043631


 No.1043638

>>1043631

From my understanding of that format It's OK if your making textures for 3d models But that's the only thing you would really use it for Like I tell everybody don't listen to me I'm not that smart


 No.1043639>>1061915

>>1043631

Png is for doodles and icons jpg is for sharing photos online and tiff is for model textures


 No.1043646>>1043647 >>1043648

>>1032621

Your showing your age grampa. These days, kids like to take a video of the image on someone elses phone, then add a caption to it with snapchat.


 No.1043647

>>1043646

Is it just me or is everybody getting dumber and dumber I'm a millennial and I feel pretty stupid I can only imagine what's going to happen the next generation


 No.1043648

>>1043646

I can also imagine that the quality would probably suck ass


 No.1043681>>1043713

>>1028008

>what is lepton

Shitposting aside, it gives around 20% of lossless compression (compress-decompress cycle returns identical jpeg data) on my multiterabyte corpus of hentai and chan images.


 No.1043682

>>1032512

You do realize that JPEG does not use indexed color and 'more colors are added to compensate' makes zero sense?


 No.1043713

>>1043681

thats alot of hentai but its isn't enough for me yeeer


 No.1043745>>1043919 >>1044292

this has been a thread for more than a month now and still nobody talks about the superiority of the farbfeld image format


 No.1043765>>1043878

I rarely see people JPG shit that should have been PNG'd, but I see lazy retards copy paste images (becoming ClipboardImage.png or something similar) and turning a sub-megabyte jpg into a 6+ megabyte png all the fucking time and it pisses me off.


 No.1043878

>>1043765

this is what i mean with png needing custom settings for every imege type. it wont just work as the default format


 No.1043916

>>1027999 (OP)

Also https://pngquant.org/

>lossy compressed png still looks better than a "normal" jpg


 No.1043919>>1043932

>>1043745

Farbfeld isn't intended primarily as an image distribution format, but instead as an image processing format. This is why it uses 16 bit channels, which will double the file size to no gain when viewing. This extra data is useful when processing.


 No.1043932>>1043949

>>1043919

>Farbfeld isn't intended primarily as an image distribution format

Wrong. Farbfeld is intended to be a super simple image format. Compression is left to external tools.

https://tools.suckless.org/farbfeld/faq/

This is UNIX braindamage of the highest degree. Suckless niggers are truly the dumbest UNIX weenies.


 No.1043946

File (hide): 0e87bae2d83125a⋯.webm (1.49 MB, 490x360, 49:36, Do_look_like_I_know_what_….webm) (h) (u) [play once] [loop]

File (hide): 927f6b60176deb0⋯.webm (305.04 KB, 480x360, 4:3, For_when_someone_posts_a_….webm) (h) (u) [play once] [loop]


 No.1043949>>1043972

File (hide): 08fe96a6a5c22e3⋯.jpg (43.92 KB, 600x600, 1:1, 1438817562901.jpg) (h) (u)

>>1043932

>design a dead simple image format with great compression characteristics

>let people use whatever compression algorithm they want

>BRAIN DAMAGE

>DUMB WEENIES


 No.1043968

>>1032471

>Use optipng

Look up FileOptimizer. It combines optipng with a bunch of other png optimizers


 No.1043972>>1044027

File (hide): e7d06029b76e649⋯.gif (1022.49 KB, 640x480, 4:3, nigger emoji lit.gif) (h) (u)

>>1043949

>>design a dead simple image format with great compression characteristics

no

>>let people use whatever compression algorithm they want

general purpose compression algorithms perform not that well on images

>>BRAIN DAMAGE

yes, you have it

>>DUMB WEENIES

no. _dumbest_ weenies. suckless are the _dumbest_ ever

i really like your picture :) pic related :D mind if i save your picture?


 No.1044027>>1044063

File (hide): 9fae2a1bda1f7a0⋯.gif (1.98 MB, 701x500, 701:500, 1424893424103.gif) (h) (u)

>>1043972

>general purpose compression algorithms perform not that well on images

They do on farbfeld, faggot, well enough to beat PNG on stuff like lineart, photographs, and paletted images. Also, learn English you fucking shitter.


 No.1044063>>1044195

>>1044027

>in certain special cases it is better

How about real world cases? Try it out, nigger.

Also what's wrong with my english?


 No.1044160>>1044175

PNG is much better for payloading zero-days onto vulnerable devices.


 No.1044175>>1044183 >>1044207

>>1044160

Only if you're decoder is written in an unsafe language like C/C++.


 No.1044183>>1044192 >>1044207

>>1044175

It's actually better if it's written in rust, because you don't have to rely on the author of the software making a mistake, you just know the language itself will have multiple overflow vulnerabilities built in to it


 No.1044192>>1044209


 No.1044195>>1044238

>>1044063

>Also what's wrong with my english?

>perform not that well

It's "don't perform well", nigger


 No.1044207>>1044238

>>1044183

>>1044175

rust shills pls go, there are fuck tonnes of vulns in rust

nobody wants your shitty botnet children's language


 No.1044209>>1044238

>>1044192

Nobody outside the developers of the language itself use rust. It's actually a miracle that any vulnerabilities were found, and it hints to much deeper systemic problems in the rust project when people are finding vulnerabilities in a language that is not used by anybody, so it has never been independently audited, nor is there any real payoff for security researchers to search out and discover vulnerabilities on their own


 No.1044238>>1044676 >>1044691

>>1044195

You're wrong, faggot. It is 100% correct english. Prove me wrong.

>>1044207

>muh rust shills

Not everyone is a Rust shill. Some are just sick of C/C++ singlehandedly fucking everyone shit up again and again and again and again.

>>1044209

>Nobody outside the developers of the language itself use rust.

Absolute bullshit. There are a lot of people/companies that use Rust.


 No.1044292

>>1043745

That's not funny!


 No.1044676>>1044679

>>1044238

You're that trany rust shill who also lurks half.


 No.1044679

File (hide): c76db1c59ab13eb⋯.jpg (384.3 KB, 1400x933, 1400:933, steve klabnik.jpg) (h) (u)

>>1044676

>newfag spotted


 No.1044691>>1044693

>>1044238

>Some are just sick of C/C++ singlehandedly fucking everyone shit up again and again and again and again.

t. can't into C++

The thing I dislike most about C and C++ is how strings are handled.

The BString implementation in Haiku is a lot more comfy.

However it's okay because std::to:string() in C++11 does the job too.

You just shouldn't ignore any compiler warnings. You can't compare signed and unsigned int or you'll get (signed int)-100>(unsigned int)50 is true or bullshit like that.


 No.1044693>>1044696

>>1044691

>t. can't into C++

t. LARPer


 No.1044696>>1044699

>>1044693

t. calls people who program larpers while hoping for his magic flawless LISP machine which he wouldn't be able to use to view a video because his language and machine are too shit to access the HDD.


 No.1044699>>1044701

>>1044696

>everyone who isn't cnile is a LISPnigger

t. LARPer


 No.1044701>>1044705

>>1044699

>everyone who isn't cnile is a LISPnigger

>implying you aren't

>I'm totally not x

instead of

>I'm an Ada programmer

I saw right through you, LISP/Rust/Whateverfag!


 No.1044705

>>1044701

>mental illness

Sorry to hear that, bro. Remember to drive over all the CIA niggers (they are easy to spot in the darkness because they glow).


 No.1044708>>1044726 >>1044735 >>1044861

File (hide): 7e72bfb1ea89ad6⋯.png (1.59 MB, 680x510, 4:3, 1443405872722.png) (h) (u)

>mfw normalniggers say you can't see the color loss in jpg when compared to png or any lossless format


 No.1044726

>>1044708

>tfw when people wearing glasses tell you they don't see the difference

I know your feels.


 No.1044735

>>1044708

wont be easy if its a high quality jpg. it will be a big file then but its possible to have good quality in that format too


 No.1044861>>1044874

File (hide): ce717a6751facca⋯.png (85.16 KB, 1200x1200, 1:1, 1200px-SVG_logo.svg.png) (h) (u)

>>1044708

>need small file

>lossless 8-bit photo the size of a postage stamp

vs

>lossy compressed ultra hd deep color hdri stereoscopic photo

PNG, like GIF before it, is literal garbage. Anything that should be a bitmap image can't be compressed by PNG, anything that PNG can compress effectively, shouldn't be a bitmap image.

What's needed is a compound format resembling PDF or DJvu, with all compression software for it defaulting to automatically detect different types of imagery (text, lineart, photorealistic), slice it up, autovectorize/OCR if necessary, and compress each part of the image with appropriate codecs.


 No.1044874


 No.1044888>>1045020

File (hide): e80721bdd445e73⋯.png (2.18 MB, 1229x2316, 1229:2316, 1525828823319.png) (h) (u)

>>1027999 (OP)

Trips of truth. All jpg cucks will hang.


 No.1044890>>1044894 >>1061968

>>1027999 (OP)

webp is better than png.


 No.1044894>>1044992 >>1061968

>>1044890

Webp isn't even better than JPG because it's based on VP8 video encoding it looks way worse at same filesize.


 No.1044992>>1061968

>>1044894

Based. WebP is literal trash. See >>1028234 on how to disable it in Firefox.


 No.1045020>>1045029 >>1045675

File (hide): 270ae0cb1f116f7⋯.jpg (738.89 KB, 1229x2316, 1229:2316, image.jpg) (h) (u)


 No.1045029>>1045675

File (hide): 1033fd16b5989d1⋯.webm (329.15 KB, 1229x2316, 1229:2316, image.webm) (h) (u) [play once] [loop]

>>1045020

>all those artifacts on plain color


 No.1045057>>1045698

>>1032471

>Use optipng for stripping down pngs. Pic related is identical to yours.

Use FileOptimizer for stripping down pngs. Pic related is identical to yours.


 No.1045675

>>1045020

> lossy compression

see >>1045029


 No.1045698>>1062038

File (hide): ee64d53e1759675⋯.jpg (1.43 KB, 668x179, 668:179, png niggers cant do this3.jpg) (h) (u)

File (hide): c60f5b05c89be41⋯.jpg (39.91 KB, 528x628, 132:157, RMS smug about your post.jpg) (h) (u)

>>1045057

I see your 1.64 KB and raise you my 1.42 KB


 No.1049935

I've never understood why people save things in jpg

>destroys image quality

>bbbbbuu--tt i-it does x thing better!!

Meaningless BS if the image looks like it was blurred 10 times in photoshop


 No.1049953>>1060542 >>1061011

File (hide): 86b03c5fa32c052⋯.jpg (13.95 KB, 668x179, 668:179, faggot.jpg) (h) (u)

File (hide): 66dc39a97e59a55⋯.png (468.17 KB, 668x179, 668:179, faggot.png) (h) (u)

>>1027999 (OP)

>.PNG is smaller

wat?


 No.1060460>>1060486

Kill all jpg and webm users


 No.1060486>>1061968

>>1060460

I think you mean webp.

If you actually mean webm better make sure to get a lossless video codec supported be browsers.

I hope FLIF will kill PNG, GIF, APNG, MNG and the other crap.


 No.1060542>>1061011

>>1049953

Use the right settings fag


 No.1061011>>1061919

>>1049953

>>1060542

I'm not sure if we're dealing with bait here, but genius if yes.


 No.1061913

File (hide): 3a1849a8d92df16⋯.png (60.02 KB, 420x248, 105:62, 1557142622710.png) (h) (u)


 No.1061915

>>1043639

/thread


 No.1061919

>>1061011

Color Depth in PNG mother fucker DO YOU KNOW IT


 No.1061968>>1062039

>>1028023

>>1028121

>>1028230

>>1028234

>>1044890

>>1044894

>>1044992

>>1060486

Literally the only flaw (aside from being outmoded by even newer formats like AVIF or HEIF, which is no criticism compared to something as ancient as JPEG) in WebP is 4:2:0 chroma.


 No.1062038

>>1045698

nah nigga, fuck outta here with that shit. Only reason why it's discernible even in the slightest is because we've spent all thread looking actually legible screenshots.


 No.1062039>>1062041 >>1062103

>>1061968

At the same filesize webp has worse quality than a jpeg (which allows for 4:4:4 4:2:0 and 4:0:0). It's based on VP8 which is worse than pretty much everything.

The reason no one implements it apart from google and the firekikes is that it's just shit.

>Literally the only flaw

WORSE THAN JPEG

VP8 was the reasons webms were considered worse than MP4 at the beginning.

>HEIF

And that's just apple fags in their apple echochamber. It only keeps them bound to apple as consumerist cattle which has to buy apple products in order to view the vacation pictures they shot.


 No.1062041>>1064431

>>1062039

What about VP9 WebP?


 No.1062103>>1064431

>>1062039

>JPEG (which allows for 4:4:4 4:2:0 and 4:0:02:2:)

Irrelevant, given the fact that 99.999% of JPEGs you see online or from a camera are already in 4:2:0 due to default settings and gormless normalfags.

>WORSE THAN JPEG

Completely impossible. JPEG is so embarrassingly obsolete, nondestructive file compression can shrink it by 15-60%.


 No.1062108>>1062112 >>1062126

You have one of two options: you either waste time or you waste storage space.

Time.is the one limited resource you cannot gain more of. Storage size is irrelevant of we're talking about 100 KB extra on your HDD (or 8ch's servers.)

This whole discussion of filesize for screencaps is absurd. The amount of time wasted on compression isn't really worth it at all.


 No.1062112

File (hide): aa0acb02f9139b4⋯.jpg (36.92 KB, 1280x720, 16:9, sisyphean labor.jpg) (h) (u)

>>1062108

>what is time spent writing bazillion-times-bloated images to disk

>what is time transmitting bazillion-times-bloated images across network

>what is time spent copying bazillion-times-bloated images from storage to gpu vram with codec offload


 No.1062126

>>1062108

You could have compressed 200+ large PNGs on a single, more-or-less-modern desktop core in the time it took you to write this message, let alone the time you took to read this thread and synthesize some sort of opinion. Besides, for bog-standard, no-transparency images, everyone I know just goes to PING for no/controlled loss and JAYPEG otherwise, and that's perfectly fine.


 No.1062630

>>1027999 (OP)

true, can't stress that enough. jpg sucks and on photos you need to remove tons of exif metadata from the pictures before you can send them to anyone.


 No.1064420

>>1027999 (OP)

protip

pngquant -s9 --nofs in.png

conv.desktop

[Desktop Entry]

Type=Application

Name=PNGquant

Exec=pngquant --nofs -s9 --strip -- %f

StartupNotify=false

#NoDisplay=true

#Icon=system-restart-panel


 No.1064431

>>1062041

>VP9 WebP

There is no VP9 WebP. It would be a new format.

>>1062103

Stop lying, stupid google rat.

>Completely impossible. JPEG is so embarrassingly obsolete, nondestructive file compression can shrink it by 15-60%.

Yes and that takes time to compress and decompress. I could do the same with a WebP or any other file.

WebP has worse filesize/quality and that's the truth.

Google just wanted to shit out something with the new "technology" they just bought.

Obviously it depends on the content but for images not consisting of flat color webp just produces more blurry results with less details at same filesize.

Yes webp is shit. It's like the only image format recommended which is worse than JPG. (Just slightly. They're both pretty shit.)

I just made comparison files (with JPG 15KB smaller but still more detail) but can't even upload that webp. Sry.


 No.1064432

Here. Just rename and see for yourself.




[Return][Go to top][Catalog][Screencap][Nerve Center][Cancer][Update] ( Scroll to new posts) ( Auto) 5
137 replies | 31 images | Page ?
[Post a Reply]
[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / agatha2 / animu / ausneets / b2 / choroy / dempart / freeb / vichan ][ watchlist ]