Thanks for the recommendation. I didn’t know such little reduction in quality meant so much savings with JPGs and PNGs!
Yeah. Avif gave me some nasty artifacts on some pictures that I wanted to save long term. Not using it anytime soon… or at least until those issues are fixed.
Why do you dislike WebP? I can see that it isn’t widely used, so if longevity is my goal JPGs and PNGs are a better bet. But am I missing something about WebP?
WebP is even worse than AVIF for compression, and has very bad problems with ease of conversion to JPG or other formats, and WebP has not exactly caught up in a decade like it was supposed to. If it has not caught up, why not use the most complete universal image format standard built to date instead?
It is amazing to me how WebP got pushed for “web” usage despite lacking something as fundamental as progressive decoding (how you see a blurred image when image is partially loading up).
Thanks for the recommendation. I didn’t know such little reduction in quality meant so much savings with JPGs and PNGs!
Yeah. Avif gave me some nasty artifacts on some pictures that I wanted to save long term. Not using it anytime soon… or at least until those issues are fixed.
Why do you dislike WebP? I can see that it isn’t widely used, so if longevity is my goal JPGs and PNGs are a better bet. But am I missing something about WebP?
WebP is even worse than AVIF for compression, and has very bad problems with ease of conversion to JPG or other formats, and WebP has not exactly caught up in a decade like it was supposed to. If it has not caught up, why not use the most complete universal image format standard built to date instead?
https://cloudinary.com/blog/the-case-for-jpeg-xl You can read the initial and conclusion parts if in a hurry, but reading the whole is better.
It is amazing to me how WebP got pushed for “web” usage despite lacking something as fundamental as progressive decoding (how you see a blurred image when image is partially loading up).