• N-E-N@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    35
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    A lot of things don’t support it yet, but it’s technically a better compression format

    • Ottomateeverything@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      20
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      This is how every new thing starts though. You don’t just get better standards overnight. Jpg and png didn’t happen overnight either. PNG had this problem for quite a while.

      It’s not a problem with WebP. It’s a problem with tooling that aren’t moving forwards to objectively more effective formats.

    • ares35@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      better compression that’s often configured wrong by site admins and the quality is shit-tier.

      • Knusper@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        22
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Nope. JPEG XL is more modern and delivers lower file sizes without fucking up image quality as much. Downside is that, right now, JPEG XL is actually supported by even less things, because it is still so new.

        But it is an industry standard rather than just Google trying to push its own thing, so I do expect it to overtake WebP in a few years.