• pivot_root@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    77
    ·
    edit-2
    3 days ago

    Fuck webp, use JPEG XL*. It supports lossless and lossy compression, and it’s compression is on par or better than webp. It also isn’t entirely designed by Google.

    * With JPEG fallback. Google, being Google, blocked the addition of JXL decoding in Chrome and Android.

  • GreatAlbatross@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    edit-2
    2 days ago

    When you copy and paste an image from a web browser (an image, not the original file), it often puts it in the paste buffer as a png.

    So it’s not impossible for someone, without realising, to paste a 50MB image in a reply.
    With a decent internet connection, you might not even twig.
    And if the server isn’t set with filesize limits and transcodes, you can end up with a very small number of images taking up a very large amount of space.
    Common examples are hi-res paintings/movie posters with grain, or poor quality (but high resolution) photos with lots of sensor noise.

  • poVoq@slrpnk.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    75
    ·
    3 days ago

    The pict-rs backend can be configured to automatically convert images to webp. So if an instance admin cares about the “bytes” they can do so.

  • 𝕾𝖕𝖎𝖈𝖞 𝕿𝖚𝖓𝖆@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    2 days ago

    I usually crop, resize, and/or reduce quality before I post images anymore. I aim for images to be less than 500 kB before uploading unless it’s that worthy of a zoom or the extra detail.

    I don’t think there’s that much perceptible quality loss between an original 16 MP image and resizing it to 4 MP and 80%, but the image ends up around 90% smaller. This was basically how I had my digital point and shoot camera set up in 2008. My mom gave me a 256 MB SD card for it, and that went fast sometimes.

  • Sunshine (she/her)@lemmy.caOP
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    14
    ·
    edit-2
    3 days ago

    I love how Tesseract has the automatic conversion to webp option when posting.

    I tested converting my png profile picture on mastodon and the size went down from 350 kb to 70 kb.

  • SatyrSack@feddit.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    3 days ago

    In my limited testing, exporting as a JPG can sometimes lead to a smaller file size than exporting to WEBP. Not always. I’m not sure if there is just some “point of diminishing returns” or whatever where JPG actually becomes more efficient or what.

    • ChaoticNeutralCzech@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      3 days ago

      WebP can be either lossless or lossy. These two modes achieve objectively better compression than PNG or JPEG, respectively. Obviously, you need to pay attention to the settings to get the best file size for your use case.

      • weker01@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 day ago

        That is actually something I really dislike. Lossless and lossy formats should be immediately distinguishable.

    • The_Decryptor@aussie.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      2 days ago

      I’m not sure if there is just some “point of diminishing returns” or whatever where JPG actually becomes more efficient or what.

      There is, but it’s at high quality levels. If you’re using WebP for thumbnails or other lower quality situations (Which was the original intended use) then WebP will give you better quality than JPEG for a given filesize.

      For lossless uses it’s even better, the format is much more limited than PNG, but in the common cases it beats it.