| > For high quality photography purposes jpeg is bordering on useless > Use WebP! For everything! Jyrki Alakuijala, one of the creators of WebP, on WebP vs JPEG [1]: >> For high quality photography, I (and butteraugli) believe that JPEG is actually better than WebP. >> Below JPEG quality 77 WebP lossy wins, above JPEG quality 77 JPEG wins (for photography). >> This was based on the maximum compression artefact in an image -- averaging from 1000 images. Better meaning here [2]: >> Faster decode (up to around 6x faster) and less bytes needed at high quality (in comparison to butteraugli scores). [1] https://encode.ru/threads/2905-Diverse-third-party-ecosystem... [2] https://encode.ru/threads/2905-Diverse-third-party-ecosystem... |
That's interesting. Of course, the subjective part of that is one person's take, and the "objective" part of it is pointless because the whole point of Guetzli (the jpeg encoder) is to try to maximize the Butteraugli score, so saying that WebP gets a lower score is not significant.
Personally, WebP looks a lot better to me in the direct tests of equal file size that I've seen. It even looks better than Pik, which is Google's experimental successor to Jpeg that also uses Butteraugli.
And it would be odd, to say the least, if a codec from the early nineties could beat a modern one on Intra-frame coding, which has been a subject of immense research over the years.
Take a look at some of these for yourself. https://wyohknott.github.io/image-formats-comparison/