• SatyrSack@feddit.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    3 months ago

    In my limited testing, exporting as a JPG can sometimes lead to a smaller file size than exporting to WEBP. Not always. I’m not sure if there is just some “point of diminishing returns” or whatever where JPG actually becomes more efficient or what.

    • ChaoticNeutralCzech@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 months ago

      WebP can be either lossless or lossy. These two modes achieve objectively better compression than PNG or JPEG, respectively. Obviously, you need to pay attention to the settings to get the best file size for your use case.

      • weker01@sh.itjust.works
        cake
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        3 months ago

        That is actually something I really dislike. Lossless and lossy formats should be immediately distinguishable.

        • ChaoticNeutralCzech@feddit.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          2 months ago

          What if I told you JPEG can be lossless too? By dialing the quality to 100% and using the rare setting of 4:4:4 RGB to prevent loss through colorspace conversion, you can create JPEG files that store any 8bit picture losslessly. It will be larger than a BMP for some of them but that is correct for any lossless format.