>>105770251
>we were literally talking about lossless compression
Yeah.
>nothing of what you just said makes any sense
I'm being pretty clear.
>converting your pngs to lossless webp has nothing to do with small resolution images with shit compression
I know. Earlier I said
>WebP is used as a PNG replacement on THE WEB ONLY for a reason.
>...what adds up fast
Downloaded bytes.

>>105770387
Anyone disagreeing with this hasn't read the FLAC spec. The one good reason for preferring WAV over FLAC is simply comparability.

>>105770251
>we were literally talking about lossless compression
Yeah.
>nothing of what you just said makes any sense
I'm being pretty clear.
>converting your pngs to lossless webp has nothing to do with small resolution images with shit compression
I know. Earlier I said
>WebP is used as a PNG replacement on THE WEB ONLY for a reason.
>...what adds up fast
Downloaded bytes.

>>105770387
Anyone disagreeing with this hasn't read the FLAC spec. The one good reason for preferring WAV over FLAC is simply comparability.

>>105770251
>we were literally talking about lossless compression
Yeah.
>nothing of what you just said makes any sense
I'm being pretty clear.
>converting your pngs to lossless webp has nothing to do with small resolution images with shit compression
I know. Earlier I said
>WebP is used as a PNG replacement on THE WEB ONLY for a reason.
>...what adds up fast
Downloaded bytes.

>>105770387
Anyone disagreeing with this hasn't read the FLAC spec. The one good reason for preferring WAV over FLAC is simply comparability.

>>81645686
>can't into filtering
LOL