Comment Comment by vladdanilov > For high quality photography purposes jpeg is bordering on useless> Use WebP! For everything!Jyrki Alakuijala, one of the creators of WebP, on WebP vs JPEG [1]:>> For high quality photography, I (and butteraugli) believe that JPEG is actually better than WebP.>> Below JPEG quality 77 WebP lossy wins, above JPEG quality 77 JPEG wins (for photography).>> This was based on the maximum compression artefact in an image -- averaging from 1000 images.Better meaning here [2]:>> Faster decode (up to around 6x faster) and less bytes needed at high quality (in comparison to butteraugli scores).[1] https://encode.ru/threads/2905-Diverse-third-party-ecosystem...[2] https://encode.ru/threads/2905-Diverse-third-party-ecosystem... parent vladdanilov 7 years ago
> Use WebP! For everything!
Jyrki Alakuijala, one of the creators of WebP, on WebP vs JPEG [1]:
>> For high quality photography, I (and butteraugli) believe that JPEG is actually better than WebP.
>> Below JPEG quality 77 WebP lossy wins, above JPEG quality 77 JPEG wins (for photography).
>> This was based on the maximum compression artefact in an image -- averaging from 1000 images.
Better meaning here [2]:
>> Faster decode (up to around 6x faster) and less bytes needed at high quality (in comparison to butteraugli scores).
[1] https://encode.ru/threads/2905-Diverse-third-party-ecosystem...
[2] https://encode.ru/threads/2905-Diverse-third-party-ecosystem...