WebP

here's original png

Attached: Kyousuke_and_kirino_%5C_date%5C_.png (1280x720, 1.1M)

That's hardly the same visual quality, but I already know that's because of your denoise filter.
Also at least compare it against the non-bloated version of your PNG.

Attached: ect.png (1280x720, 679K)

That's just webm hacked to act like webp, actual webp is significantly more efficient. Anyway my point still stands, 90% of the time even if you could get the original bloated PNG you'd get essentially the same quality as the transcoded webp which would be 70-80% smaller.

Essentially the same quality =/= the same quality. It's just another step to further degrade the image. I get it that many people don't care about compression artifacts and rather take a small JPG with tons of generational loss than a big PNG file, but is it so hard to understand when somebody wants to get the original quality instead?
All of this doesn't apply to lossless WebP of course, but I doubt a website would use lossless compression when lossy saves so much more file size.

There's a thing called diminishing returns, do you REALLY need that 5-10% quality difference of a bloated PNG in ALL of your images? It's like video and audio, whether you admit it or not deep down inside you're okay with some quality loss unless you have the original 4:4:4 raw video from the movie cameras used to shoot movies and the master 32-bit WAV used to make music.

Started watching this degeneracy recently. It's depressing.

It should because it shows what happens when cold wars are started. Oreimo is a narrative of the cuban missile crisis of sibling rivalry.

The problem is that you don't lose those 5-10% just once. When using lossy codecs it's important to avoid every unnecessary encode. It's the same with audio and video. There's nothing wrong with lossy audio codecs, but you shouldn't convert lossy to lossy if it can be avoided.
Websites recompressing uploaded pictures and holding the original back is just another step towards a shitty picture. Sure, this one compression isn't too bad, but then somebody downloads, edits and saves it again lossy. Then this person uploads the picture somewhere else, where it might get recompressed again and so on. It's the curse of generational loss.
What I don't care about if a website takes a PNG and compresses it as lossless WebP. Hell, they could even use cwebp's near_lossless optimization to save more space and I wouldn't mind.

Fair enough though you should know there are even stupider people that take that lossy image that has been transcoded 100X and then upload it as a PNG for some reason. This is actually why 90% of youtube videos are inherently shitty. Even if youtube used like 100mbps bitare the generational loss still be there.

>degeneracy
>4chins is muh safe space
boi

This. Nothing wrong with a little sister lusting for her brother's dick.

Attached: 1420489085540.jpg (1280x720, 63K)

Except she wasn't, she actually just wanted her "real" brother back and wanted to BTFO manami. The half retard enforced a grudge against her brother which was stabbed to death by her innate desire to have her "real" brother back.

Anyway this sounds eeriely familiar as something that was in the news a couple years ago. Except that ended with felony charges for one of the siblings.

what a strange Vivaldi download link.

>There's a thing called diminishing returns, do you REALLY need that 5-10% quality difference of a bloated PNG in ALL of your images?
If you are dumb enough to compare 1.1MB png against 63KB webp, yes. Every single time.
Your encode is pretty damn shit, pal

see

So... you're really dumb to not understand that I'm talking about quality and not "wooow isn't 63KB is more like 30KB, user omg".
Kys

At 63KB the most recent version of the webp encoder will get you visual quality so close to the original you'll have a hard time telling them apart.

>you'll have a hard time telling them apart.
Now that might be a bit exaggerated, but it's still pretty good (especially compared to JPG).
my.mixtape.moe/wuidvz.webp

Attached: out.jpg (1280x720, 62K)

Since I'm at it, I always wanted to test BPG.
Now that's what I call a hard time telling them apart.
my.mixtape.moe/pvrfvy.bpg
For convenience sake here's the decoded bpg file (as most won't be able to view it otherwise).
PNG: 695,331 bytes
JPG: 63,497 bytes
BPG: 62,730 bytes
WebP: 62,498 bytes

Too bad that BPG sucks at lossless encoding. Barely smaller than the optimized PNG. WebP clearly wins this category.

Attached: bpg.png (1280x720, 780K)

is webp webm? I don't get it and it's annoying to look at because it loops inside the video player

WebP is an image format based on VP8's intra compression. WebM is a container for VP8, VP9, AV1, Vorbis and Opus streams.

These 1 second still webms are cancer.

Holy shit, I can't tell the webp and PNG apart. Either I'm blind or my 2012 monitor is finally starting to show its age.

They're the ONLY way this gook site can display webp photos. Life is suffering.

Attached: how-do-you-mahage-pain-exercise-yoga-tylenol-ibuprofen-alcohol-accupuncture-massage-heroin-36255274. (500x514, 12K)

Attached: how-do-you-mahage-pain-exercise-yoga-tylenol-ibuprofen-alcohol-accupuncture-massage-heroin-36255274. (500x514, 128K)

Then don't use fucking webp photos. Why should you care about conserving gookmoot's bandwidth if he doesn't?

Because it would allow for higher quality uploads and faster loading times. I want both desu especially in hi-res boards.

Then bug him to add support. Or wait until Google releases the next "open" replacement for it and you can start shilling that while few people adopt it because they're starting to realize that Google doesn't really grasp the idea of long term industry wide standards.

getfirefox.com