.webp

sensible_chuckle.jpg

EXPLAIN

no u

Reminder

Attached: webpiss.png (1920x1080, 1.72M)

>this will happen irl ever

>.flif

Attached: based.png (1920x816, 1.41M)

>.jpg:orig
Fuck you

Attached: 1470406730904.jpg (385x375, 35K)

>promise lossless compression
>provide utter shit
>everyone sucks the liquid shit out of your rancid asshole because you're Google
"It's K brah, no-one will notice the loss."

Lol is that ZUN?

Attached: 1495957441041.gif (300x400, 67K)

Jesus Christ can you just stop exposing how retarded you are already?
>codec version used was outdated when the image was made years ago
>comparing q-98 @17874 bytes vs q-35 @ 1900 bytes
>talking about lossless when using the q-35 flag
>implying anyone will ever save, edit, and resave an image as webp 500 times vs using a lossless master file

>.o

Attached: 1555197967818.gif (234x291, 1.28M)

>comparing q-98 @17874 bytes vs q-35 @ 1900 bytes
It's actually q -98 (as in minus 98) vs. q 35. FLIF's quality setting is kinda weird.

>>promise lossless compression
It's both a lossy and lossless coded depending on the settings. That picture is obviously lossy.

>.gifv

Attached: D74AC6E3930B4612B40503F2030E3D6C.png (645x773, 11K)

>DS_STORE

I blame Apple.

>.jpg.exe

>comparing q-98 @17874 bytes vs q-35 @ 1900 bytes
It's likely a setting that gives a comparable size at the 1st generation, and its compression is such that it drops the hard to compress areas until it ends up with nothing left.

seems legit

Almost.
>The first frame of this video shows the lossless images, the next frame shows the sizes at the lowest quality of the range (there is a different quality scale for each format; it is chosen to get roughly the same filesize at the lowest quality), and from then on, quality settings are chosen randomly within the range.

>.3gp

Attached: Dime Store Chic_ October 2007.jpg (141x141, 9K)

based and redpilled