>Websites are going to switch to webp more and more because of its dec/enc performance and its compression efficiency over JPG AND PNG and now even GIF. Basically webp will replace all 3 and outperform all of them.
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
.webp
Nolan Martin
Benjamin Gonzalez
lossy and lossless should always have segregate file extensions. always.
Kevin Miller
Nah, but you shouldn't force different compression algorithms within a single format.
Zachary Rivera
>.jpg-large
Ethan Sanders
Why hasn't gook moot allowed us to use .webp yet?
Tyler Perez
webp is only useful for people who use smartphones most of the time instead of desktops.
So tech companies are forcing you use mobile platforms because it more efficient for new formats and many people use the internet with their phones.
Andrew Lewis
Smaller image file size: faster loading times for user & $$$ saved on hosting. Why would this NOT be used for laptop/desktop PCs?
Chase Garcia
>lossless webP is bigger than png
thanks for nothing I guess
Jackson Taylor
Not anymore.
Bentley Peterson
So I tested my previous files with gif2webp 1.0.2 and honestly, I don't see much of a change. Lossless compression is a bit better than GIF and at best only somewhat worse than APNG. Lossy compression can, of course, reduce the file size further, but in three instances (1,2,5) the results were much worse, in one (3) slightly worse and only one (4) provided good results for the amount of file size saved
pastebin.com
To end on a good note, min_size didn't introduce any weird issues at all.