Has anyone else noticed that 4chan allows webp for advertisers but not for users? I always keep hearing that webp isn't that much better for JPG but I'm not really convinced because I opened up my JPG screenshot in gimp, saved it to webp with 75% quality and I don't really notice a huge difference between the original JPG and the webp quality wise and I shaved off about 2MB so to me it looks like webp is about 50% more efficient than JPG.

https://files.catbox.moe/x5a2lp.webp

>75% quality
stopped reading

>>105768875 (OP)
> be you
> Poor
> Want rich boy features
I don't listen to poor man threads.

>>105768892
I seems like this is the point of diminishing returns for webp. You can easily tell lossy compression occurred at 200% zoom but at 100% zoom I would probably say that both images are the same if you hid which one was JPG and which one was webp.

At 70% or lower the difference becomes pretty obvious thoughbeit.

>>105768875 (OP)
nigger
i can re-save your image as jpeg with 25% compression and also shave off 2MB

>>105769073
Looks worse. Now try 1.55 MB like the webp file size :)

Why didn't the 4chan hackers silently enable webp instead?

>>105768875 (OP)
webp is awful

>>105769528
I wouldn't go that far. It's never going to compete with modern image formats but it'll still curb stomp JPG especially at the lower quality end which is what the internet mostly cares about unfortunately. If that wasn't the case then yeah webp wasn't much of an improvement over JPG desu.

Webp lags webpage with too many and rapes cpu/memory so i blacklist websites that use it even avif.

>>105768875 (OP)
>ads are webp
yet another example of all webp being unwanted low quality content that no website should allow as uploads
nobody wants your fucking incorrectly saved pinterest reuploads

>>105769692
Shit man what are you using, a pentium 4 computer? Decoding webp is like exponentially less CPU intensive than AVIF and especially JXL.

So what's after H264 anyway? Jpeg2000?

>>105769819
>don't offload your computing tasks onto me
>>BREH IS YOU POOR?
modern web design

It might be the browser changing them to webp from the ad server as well.

>>105769819
Your an idiot

>>105768875 (OP)
WebP has awful loss with multiple compressions. It degenerates worse than JPG.

The logical solution should be JPG-XL. Also PNG is getting new features and they're working on new compression algorithms so there's that too.

>>105775014
>The logical solution should be JPG-XL.
lolno decode speed is pretty terrible, see >>105769819

>>105768875 (OP)
>>105769073

>>105768875 (OP)
You gotta pay up if you want to exploit those webpiss zero days

>>105769054
images are not worth having a lossy coppy of, all of them should be lossless.

>>105769685
webp is unusably bad

>>105778712
It's only better than the shitty libjpeg-turbo encoder that was used to create 90% of internet JPGs you see today but I still think it might be worth adopting because of its ability to compress transparent images, which JPG AFAIK can't do.