FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU
>>107026343What is the purpose of your post? Why not just cry on twitter instead of shitting up a technology forum?
>>107026376FUCK YOU AND FUCK WEBP
AVIF is worse.
>>107026517How is synthetic grain worse?
only winshitters hate webp
>>107026376because it's shitty technology. And yes, you MAY complain about it on a TECHNOLOGY forum.
>>107026630Am not a winshitter. Hate WebPoo
>>107027481Got anything other than your asshole as a source?
>>107026343I would accept this if 4chinz took it.
>>107026343
>>107027674if i had a gun with two bullets and you and the inventor of webp stood in front of me i would give you two bullets
>>107027634>barely better than a format released 20 years before it'nuff said
The reason I hate WEBP is that you can’t tell whether it’s lossy or lossless by the extension. It’s too “swiss army knife”.>>107027968You would kill somebody over a file format?
>>107027979Incorrect, it's barely better than a special snowflake meme JPG optimizer used by MAYBE (and this is being super optimistic btw) like 10% of all websites. Everybody else will either stick to "good ol turbo" or worse, use nvjpeg which shits out 6 million JPGs per hour at the cost of dogshit compression efficiency.>>107028023This isn't possible with PNG either. It's possible to teduce the color palete of PNG which effectively creates "lossy" PNGs.
>>107027634>only supports 4:2:0 chroma subsamplingenough saidalso it performs worse on "real" content like photography because it tends to blur shit since google can't into psychovisual tuning, try pic relatedalso ssimulacra2 is a better metric for images, especially at the higher end of the quality scale>>107028048>This isn't possible with PNG either. It's possible to teduce the color palete of PNG which effectively creates "lossy" PNGs.it's also possible the source went through a gazillion iterations of jpeg compression before some retard decided it was necessary to convert it to pngin general the png encoder only losslessly encodes whatever pixels it's given, those pixels might have gone through an infinitude of lossy processing steps, it doesn't care
webp is shitSHIT
>>107028480Finally someone who at least spent 5 minutes googling before opening their mouth. 4:2:0 limitation is potentially a bad thing and a good thing.Bad because in certain image sources like videogame screenshots or colored text, chroma upscaling artefacts can be visible even at quality 100 Webp. Most images don't have this problem but they do exist, that's a fair critique. Good because 4:2:0 uses 50% less RAM than 4:4:4.
>>107026343I agree, and I don't care about the actual format, how good/bad it is, all irrelevantThere are only two reasons webp should not be toleratedFirst, Google image search actively converting other file formats without permission, it's a fucking jpg but if i try to save image it's suddenly webp, and have to either convert on a site or quickly write my own link to get it directly, fucking unacceptableSecond reason, pic fucking related.All other arguments are invalid.
>>107028480I don't know how to use ssimulacra2 but I do know how to use ffmetrics and my impression right now is that I somewhat agree with the SSIM scores. The Webp output has the least annoying artefacting but I do admit that something feels off about the Webp.https://files.catbox.moe/qd4k34.webp
Here is the ~340 KB JPG and my opinion is I still prefer to Webp image as it contains less annoying blocking artefacts.
Here is the ~400 KB JPG and my opinion is mixed here. The blocking artefacts aren't as bad anymore and at first glance the Webp image still feels visually more pleasing but something feels off and I don't 100% agree with the SSIM score.I will admit that these are one of those 20% of images where Webp doesn't achieve its usual 20-30% compression efficiency advantage over JPG. It might only be 10% better in this case.
