5 ms·

I'm completely with you on that. WebP should be the smallest, best supported solution right now.

kome 5y ago
WebP is a terrible practice and and it has no real value vs jpg https://pagepipe.com/dont-use-webp-image-format/ https://pagepipe.com/dont-use-webp-image-format/ - just because endorsed by google doesn't mean it's good (i would even argue, the contrary is true)
- jazzyjackson 5y ago
  > Cloudinary says we can reduce that image’s page weight from a 4.6k PNG to a 1.5k webP image. That saves 3.1k. In big letters, they tell us that is a 32-percent savings. I'm not a mathematician but...
  - unicornporn 5y ago
    If we're comparing lossy compression mode, WebP is close to equal to MozJPEG for higher res images. Check the 1500 px comparison: https://siipo.la/blog/is-webp-really-better-than-jpeg https://siipo.la/blog/is-webp-really-better-than-jpeg
- shepherdjerred 5y ago
  This page says that webp produces smaller images…
- vbezhenar 5y ago
  This article seems outdated. Webp supported on Safari. Also this article itself confirms that webp saves image size, just author for some reason thinks that it does not matter. Well, this page is not so fast to open for me, definitely not 0.5 second, more like 5 seconds, so I wouldn't be the one listening to his advices.
  - supermatt 5y ago
    > Well, this page is not so fast to open for me, definitely not 0.5 second, more like 5 seconds, so I wouldn't be the one listening to his advices. its hosted on a raspberry pi and is front page of HN...
    - wartijn_ 5y ago
      I'm pretty sure the parent poster is talking about the page that says you shouldn't use Webp, not about low-tech machazine. The former claims to load in 0.5 seconds, the latter doesn't.
      - supermatt 5y ago
        doh! I hate it when i end up viewing threads out of context :/
  - lifthrasiir 5y ago
    > This article seems outdated. Amazingly enough the page seems to be updated very recently ("November 2021", which was not present back in March [1]). [1] https://web.archive.org/web/20210305192950/https://pagepipe.com/dont-use-webp-image-format/ https://web.archive.org/web/20210305192950/https://pagepipe....
- supermatt 5y ago
  their argument is that filesize doesnt matter because images download in parallel... thats just idiotic. 10x 100MB images downloading in parallel is still going to take longer than 10x 1kB
JustFinishedBSG 5y ago
Just use AVIF with a JPEG fallback...
- lifthrasiir 5y ago
  AVIF is still in process of adoption [1], while WebP is virtually everywhere and you can even ignore fallbacks if you don't support MSIE [2]. Also while AVIF supports lossless images, its lossless compression is known to be weak and can be even inferior to PNG, while the WebP lossless mode is a dedicated algorithm and almost guaranteed to be better than PNG. This is a reason why JPEG XL can be better than AVIF in the long term, where AVIF is just another intra-frame format extracted from video codecs while JPEG XL is explicitly built to support both use cases. [1] https://caniuse.com/avif https://caniuse.com/avif [2] https://caniuse.com/webp https://caniuse.com/webp

kome 5y ago

WebP is a terrible practice and and it has no real value vs jpg https://pagepipe.com/dont-use-webp-image-format/ https://pagepipe.com/dont-use-webp-image-format/ - just because endorsed by google doesn't mean it's good (i would even argue, the contrary is true)

jazzyjackson 5y ago
> Cloudinary says we can reduce that image’s page weight from a 4.6k PNG to a 1.5k webP image. That saves 3.1k. In big letters, they tell us that is a 32-percent savings. I'm not a mathematician but...
- unicornporn 5y ago
  If we're comparing lossy compression mode, WebP is close to equal to MozJPEG for higher res images. Check the 1500 px comparison: https://siipo.la/blog/is-webp-really-better-than-jpeg https://siipo.la/blog/is-webp-really-better-than-jpeg
shepherdjerred 5y ago
This page says that webp produces smaller images…
vbezhenar 5y ago
This article seems outdated. Webp supported on Safari. Also this article itself confirms that webp saves image size, just author for some reason thinks that it does not matter. Well, this page is not so fast to open for me, definitely not 0.5 second, more like 5 seconds, so I wouldn't be the one listening to his advices.
- supermatt 5y ago
  > Well, this page is not so fast to open for me, definitely not 0.5 second, more like 5 seconds, so I wouldn't be the one listening to his advices. its hosted on a raspberry pi and is front page of HN...
  - wartijn_ 5y ago
    I'm pretty sure the parent poster is talking about the page that says you shouldn't use Webp, not about low-tech machazine. The former claims to load in 0.5 seconds, the latter doesn't.
    - supermatt 5y ago
      doh! I hate it when i end up viewing threads out of context :/
- lifthrasiir 5y ago
  > This article seems outdated. Amazingly enough the page seems to be updated very recently ("November 2021", which was not present back in March [1]). [1] https://web.archive.org/web/20210305192950/https://pagepipe.com/dont-use-webp-image-format/ https://web.archive.org/web/20210305192950/https://pagepipe....
supermatt 5y ago
their argument is that filesize doesnt matter because images download in parallel... thats just idiotic. 10x 100MB images downloading in parallel is still going to take longer than 10x 1kB

JustFinishedBSG 5y ago

Just use AVIF with a JPEG fallback...

lifthrasiir 5y ago
AVIF is still in process of adoption [1], while WebP is virtually everywhere and you can even ignore fallbacks if you don't support MSIE [2]. Also while AVIF supports lossless images, its lossless compression is known to be weak and can be even inferior to PNG, while the WebP lossless mode is a dedicated algorithm and almost guaranteed to be better than PNG. This is a reason why JPEG XL can be better than AVIF in the long term, where AVIF is just another intra-frame format extracted from video codecs while JPEG XL is explicitly built to support both use cases. [1] https://caniuse.com/avif https://caniuse.com/avif [2] https://caniuse.com/webp https://caniuse.com/webp