|
|
|
|
|
by jug
920 days ago
|
|
When I said "This isn't what any lossy formats are designed for", I meant on the web, which I thought was the context with the article and all. And then there is indeed little point of uploading images to a web server that is far larger than viewports. I also still maintain that lossy formats aren't designed to manage users zooming into textures and trying to find out compression artifacts and wavelet caused softening of power lines. We have lossless compression for this and in this regard, WebP is actually surprisingly powerful, far far more so than PNG. |
|
And even so, it is utterly unclear to me how lossy image formats can be designed "for the web" in the way you have described. I will probably expect a good progressive decoding support and possibly animation, but that's all. Otherwise it's a good old psychovisual optimization under specific viewing conditions, and it is much debatable which viewing conditions represent the web environment.
> I also still maintain that lossy formats aren't designed to manage users zooming into textures and trying to find out compression artifacts and wavelet caused softening of power lines.
Which is a fair point but WebP at the lower quality does show significant enough artifacts visible without zoom for ordinary displays. Mobiles with higher pixel density in a constrainted form factor do matter, but you can't ignore ordinary displays in your file format solely for that reason.