you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 0 points 1 year ago (3 children)

But for most images (especially ones with compression artefacts) lossless webp gives smaller sizes.

And if you already have compression artifacts, what use is lossless?
Only time you would want it is when you are uploading comparison photos specifically showing compression artifacts created from some other compression result.
That's a bit to niche to make it worthwhile.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    And if you already have compression artifacts, what use is lossless?

    To further reduce file size without further reducing quality.

    There are probably billions of jpeg files out there in the world already encoded in lossy JPEG, with no corresponding higher quality version actually available (e.g., the camera that captures the image and immediately saves it as JPEG). We shouldn't simply accept that those file sizes are going to forever be stuck, and can think through codecs that further compress the file size losslessly from there.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Wait, so lossless webp manages to be smaller than even lossy jpg, while also having to losslessly reproduce jpeg artifacts, which tends to otherwise greatly increase file sizes (as compared to the original lossless file) in lossless formats?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment