607
Webp (lemmy.ml)
submitted 1 year ago by to c/programmer_humor@programming.dev
193 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 26 points 1 year ago (1 child)

That'd just be overall worse, it'd never be smaller than a comparable JPEG image, and it wouldn't allow for any compression/quality benefits.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago

    You could compress the hell out of the traditional jpeg codec/layer part of the image. It’d be there for backwards compatibility. It only has to be readable by older clients and “acceptable” quality.

    See “49kb” example here — totally acceptable image quality for backwards compatibility.

    https://res.cloudinary.com/thewebmaster/image/upload/c_scale,f_auto,q_auto,w_1250/images/blog/jpeg-images-definitive-guide/JPEG_Quality_vs_Size.png

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent