>>106631407
>uses “cwebp -af”
...he also used mozjpeg, are you fucking blind?
>does not use any prepocessor
like 99% of pictures in the wild? why would you pre-process an image before transcoding? oh yeah to cheat in a way that gives an advantage to your shitty webp format, sure.
>>106631851
>More efficiency isn't warranted?
reading comprehension = 0
i never said more efficiency isn't warranted, I said it's existance isn't warranted when it's only a 10-20% improvement over a 30 decade old format that's way less computationally complex and which can also benefit from a 10-20% filesize reduction losslessly by jpeg-xl transcoding
good luck saving 20% by transcoding a legacy jpeg to webp while not fucking up the image quality, unfortunately every site does this and it's the reason jxl's jpeg reconstruction is a huge deal, you can't ignore the fact that 95+% of all images that exist so far are jpegs and jxl can improve those.
