|
|
|
|
|
by d0ugie
4189 days ago
|
|
> nobody would really bother.. I did, last summer, converted all images (35K) on my NSFW hobby site (check profile) to WebP with no jpeg fallback or shabby javascript decoder (which don't work on very high res images), and haven't looked back. On my journey to 1000ms-to-glass with a site like mine, I'm going to go with the format that gives me dramatic size savings, thank you Google. That said, I can see how it benefits Firefox users not to be able to render WebP... sigh. It would be helpful if 4chan followed my lead by at least allowing users to post WebP with something like mod_pagespeed running. |
|
As far as I've seen, testing has shown that WebP is not dramatically better than JPEG, as long as you're using a clever encoder (like MozJPEG, which is what we're talking about). If you have evidence to the contrary, I'm sure the MozJPEG guys would appreciate a test-case!
> That said, I can see how it benefits Firefox users not to be able to render WebP... sigh.
Instead of spending energy on dubious WebP, Mozilla spends energy on improving JPEG (which benefits everybody now) and Daala (which will hopefully benefit everybody eventually). I think it's a pretty sensible trade-off.