Aka Satan's image format.

>>105980176 (OP)
I use it on all the websites I create :-)

>>105980176 (OP)
once more software supports it it will be fine. The only issue is it attracts companies who want to compress the shit out of things, and I've started to associate webp with low quality images. But that's a user error, the format is simply better tech with more features.

>>105980176 (OP)
BUT the real question is will jpegli succeed where mozjpeg failed?

>>105980176 (OP)
Is there a good alternative lossy format with support for transparency, animation and 16.7+ million colors?

>>105980176 (OP)
you only dislike it because 4chinz doesn't support it

>>105980220
>>105980232
>>105980248
>>105980390
>>105980394

All SS2/PixDaiz
these threads are a carbon copy of the previous one with the same already refuted arguments ad nauseam

>>105980424
JPEG doesn't support transparency.
PNG's compression is inefficient for a lot of high-res graphics.
GIF only supports 256 colors.

Is there any good alternative format to these without those limitations?

>>105980424
That didn't answer my question. We all know that Webp will RAPE libjpeg-turbo, it's not even a competition. More like a senseless slaughter.

Anyway jpegli threatens Webp supremacy but what makes you think it won't be another complete and utter failure like mozjpeg?

>>105980176 (OP)
>WebP
>'P
MODS MOOOODS